On November 8, 2025, a federal judge ordered the Trump administration to fully fund the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) for November. The Justice Department has since filed an appeal, arguing that complying with the court's order would cause significant harm to federal operations, which it claims outweighs the potential injury to low-income individuals dependent on food assistance.

SNAP serves approximately 42 million Americans, providing over $8 billion in monthly benefits. During a recent government shutdown, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) planned to issue only partial payments for November, leading to legal challenges from various entities, including cities and nonprofit organizations, which argued that the administration was neglecting its legal responsibilities.

Federal Judge John J. McConnell Jr. ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, ordering the government to utilize existing funds to cover the shortfall. The administration's appeal claims that the judiciary is overstepping its authority by directing the executive branch on financial matters. The Justice Department's filing emphasizes that the court's order undermines the separation of powers and lacks a lawful basis for compelling the USDA to find the necessary funds, despite the USDA acknowledging the existence of a $5 billion emergency fund designated for SNAP.

This legal dispute reflects a broader trend where executive authority is prioritized over the basic needs of vulnerable populations. If the administration's argument prevails, it could set a precedent allowing the executive branch to disregard statutory duties based on claims of administrative inconvenience.

In parallel, a coalition of 25 Democratic-led states and the District of Columbia, led by New York Attorney General Letitia James, filed a lawsuit against the USDA, arguing that contingency funds should be utilized to prevent arbitrary disruptions in benefits. Following rulings from judges indicating that the suspension of benefits was likely unlawful, the USDA announced a partial funding plan that would provide 65 percent of normal benefits. However, subsequent court orders mandated the complete restoration of benefits, leading to further appeals from the USDA.

Additionally, Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins has raised concerns about fraud within the SNAP program, describing it as 'broken and corrupt.' She reported instances of EBT cards with excessive balances and individuals receiving benefits from multiple states simultaneously. Rollins indicated that her department has removed over 700,000 ineligible recipients from the program and arrested individuals for illegal activities related to EBT card usage. Critics of her statements argue that such claims may distract from the program's essential role in supporting low-income families.

The ongoing legal and administrative challenges surrounding SNAP funding highlight the complexities of federal assistance programs and the implications for food security among vulnerable populations. As states navigate these legal battles, the equitable distribution of resources remains a pressing concern.