What role does Congress play in SNAP funding and appropriations laws?

1. Why Congress controls SNAP funding — the appropriations lever that matters

Congress creates and authorizes SNAP and then funds it through the annual appropriations process; that makes SNAP an “appropriated entitlement” whose continued operation depends on congressional action to allocate money. Congressional reports and the statutory language summarized in the Congressional Research Service and legislative overviews show that Congress set SNAP’s structure, eligibility, and funding mechanisms in P.L. 119-21 and related statutes, and that the USDA implements those congressional decisions at the federal level while states operate benefits under federal rules. Congress’s role is both legislative and fiscal: it writes the law and writes the checks, so when appropriations lapse or are contested, the program’s ability to pay is directly affected by congressional choices and timing ^{[3] [4]}.

2. The contingency reserve fight — legal duties versus administrative discretion

When appropriations stall, a dedicated contingency reserve has been treated historically as a backup to keep SNAP running, but the administration and courts have disputed whether the reserve can be used for regular benefit payments during a shutdown. Past USDA and Office of Management and Budget guidance under multiple administrations indicated the contingency reserve could cover routine SNAP benefits, implying a legal and administrative expectation that benefits continue even in a lapse. The current controversy centers on whether the reserve must be used for “program operations” broadly or is limited, and that disagreement propelled litigation and temporary judicial orders directing payments from contingency funds, then pauses or stays from higher courts, creating short-term uncertainty for recipients ^{[2] [5] [6]}.

3. Courts step in when Congress and the Administration clash — recent rulings and pauses

Federal courts have ordered administrations to use contingency funds to pay SNAP in shutdown contexts, underscoring that when Congress’s appropriations process fails to produce clear funding, the judiciary can compel agencies to follow statutory or prior-administrative interpretations. Recent district-court orders compelled the administration to fully fund SNAP by specific deadlines, and a Supreme Court justice temporarily halted one such order, demonstrating how judicial intervention becomes decisive when legislative stalemate and administrative discretion collide. These rulings do not rewrite appropriations law; they interpret statutory authorities and prior guidance to determine whether funds must be deployed to maintain benefits pending congressional action ^{[7] [6]}.

4. The politics: competing narratives and the stakes for millions

Partisan narratives frame the issue differently: one view emphasizes legal and humanitarian obligations to keep benefits flowing, noting that withholding SNAP harms millions and that contingency funds exist for this very reason; the other emphasizes fiscal limits and competing program needs, arguing that diverting contingency funds could deprive other nutrition programs like WIC. Both frames are grounded in elements of the factual record—legal precedent and administrative guidance on one side, budgetary constraints and statutory earmarks on the other—so the political stakes translate directly into questions about which programs get priority when appropriations are tight, fueling legal and public debates ^{[7] [5]}.

5. Practical math: why the contingency fund may not be a panacea

Even if legal authority exists to draw on the contingency reserve for SNAP operations, the reserve’s estimated size—roughly $5–$6 billion—may be insufficient to cover the full cost of benefit payments for an extended lapse, which has been estimated at around $8 billion to sustain through a given month. That shortfall means that relying on the contingency reserve buys only temporary breathing room unless Congress acts to appropriate additional funds. Analysts and fact-checkers flag that while contingency funds can blunt immediate disruption, they are not a long-term substitute for Congress producing appropriations legislation to fully fund SNAP for the remainder of the fiscal year ^{[5] [2]}.

6. The remedy and the advance: what actually resolves the impasse

Ultimately, the only enduring fix is congressional action to pass appropriations or an emergency supplemental appropriation that clearly funds SNAP and related nutrition programs; judicial orders and contingency draws are stopgaps that address immediate failures but do not replace Congress’s constitutional appropriations role. The legislative history and recent CRS summaries demonstrate that Congress has the authority and the responsibility to decide program funding levels and mechanisms—and absent timely appropriations, courts and agencies will continue to interpret statutes and reserve rules to keep benefits flowing where possible. The factual record shows multiple layers of authority and competing interpretations, but it also makes plain that sustainable resolution rests with Congress completing the appropriations process ^{[3] [4]}.