High Country Advocate Staff Report
Courts Press USDA on SNAP Funding, but Benefits Remain Frozen as Shutdown Continues. Two judges sided with the states, yet no benefits have been released—and the quickest fix remains for Congress to reopen government.
Federal courts side with the states—for now
Two federal judges issued orders Friday directing the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to use existing contingency funds to keep the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) operating during the government shutdown.
The rulings came in separate cases filed in Massachusetts and Rhode Island by a coalition of 24 states and the District of Columbia, including Colorado. The states argued that USDA has both the authority and the obligation to draw from previously appropriated emergency reserves rather than halt benefits for more than 40 million Americans.
U.S. District Judge Jack McConnell in Rhode Island ruled from the bench that the program must be funded using at least the contingency funds, while Judge Indira Talwani in Massachusetts issued a written order requiring the administration to explain by Monday, Nov. 3 whether it will partially or fully fund November benefits.
Colorado’s position
Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser joined the multistate complaint earlier this week. His office said Colorado participated because hundreds of thousands of residents depend on SNAP and could face food insecurity if benefits lapse. The attorney general’s statement emphasized that reopening the federal government remains the most reliable way to restore full funding to the program.
No additional comments were issued after Friday’s court rulings.
Funding gap still unresolved
The USDA holds about $6 billion in contingency reserves, while the nationwide monthly SNAP cost is roughly $9 billion. Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins has stated that using those reserves without a new appropriation would violate the Antideficiency Act, which limits spending during a shutdown. She said that even if those funds were released, they would last only about two weeks.
The court orders require USDA to clarify its position but do not compel immediate payments. Until the agency acts—or Congress passes a funding bill—states cannot issue full November benefits.
Legal and political next steps
Both courts will review USDA’s response next week. The Justice Department is expected to defend the agency’s interpretation of budget law, setting up further hearings. Some state officials within the coalition have said that the most direct solution is for Congress to pass a clean continuing resolution (CR) and reopen the government, restoring full appropriations for SNAP and other programs.
The Senate remains six votes short of cloture on such a measure. Advocates note that senators from the 24 plaintiff states together represent nearly half the chamber—enough to determine the outcome if they unite behind a clean CR.
New statement from President Trump
Late Friday, President Donald Trump posted on his Truth Social account that his administration’s government lawyers “do not believe they can legally fund the program with the money they have currently available” and will seek additional guidance from the judicial system.
The post indicates that the White House intends to await further clarification from the courts rather than immediately release contingency funds.
Outlook
The federal courts have confirmed that contingency funds exist, but no SNAP money has yet been released. USDA will still have its day in court, and the litigation could continue for weeks.
For now, the practical solution lies in Congress, not the courtroom. Until the government reopens, the nation’s primary food-assistance program remains in limbo—and millions of households are waiting for Washington to act.
Support Independent Local Journalism — High Country Advocate was created as a real alternative to regional media that too often silences dissenting voices while taking sides in the political struggle. Producing in-depth, unflinching reporting like this series and others is expensive: servers, editing, research time, and legal review all add up quickly. If these articles have informed you or given you new perspective, please consider supporting HCA with a paid subscription — every subscriber helps keep this reporting strong and independent.
