The Trump administration cannot suspend food aid used by more than 40 million low-income Americans amid the ongoing US government shutdown, two federal judges have ruled.
The decisions, issued within moments of each other on Friday by judges in Rhode Island and Massachusetts, said the government must pay for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or Snap, benefits using emergency funds.
The Snap programme works by giving people reloadable debit cards that they can use to buy essential grocery items.
The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) announced this week it would not distribute food assistance funds in November due to the shutdown, saying “the well has run dry”.
A family of four on average receives $715 (£540) per month, which breaks down to a little less than $6 (£4.50) per day, per person.
The states administer the benefits, using money from the federal government, which has been unfunded and shut down since 1 October.
Several states have pledged to use their own funds to cover any shortfall, however the federal government has warned that they will not be reimbursed.
Half of US states had sued the Trump administration over its plans to halt funding, hoping to force it to use a roughly $6bn (£4.5bn) emergency contingency fund for Snap, also known as food stamps.
The Massachusetts judge said the administration must access the contingency funding to pay the benefits and had until Monday to report back to the court on whether they will authorise at least partial benefits for November.
Massachusetts US District Judge Indira Talwani wrote in her decision that the states who sued are likely to win in court on their claim that “Congress intended the funding of SNAP benefits, at a reduced rate if necessary, when appropriated funds prove insufficient”.
Judge Talwani also wrote that the Trump administration “erred in concluding” that the USDA is blocked by law from tapping the emergency reserves in the contingency fund when there is a lapse in federal funding.
The USDA had said those reserves were insufficient to pay full benefits, which cost $8.5bn to $9bn each month. Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins had said she would only use the fund for an emergency such as a natural disaster.
Even if the government turns to the contingency fund, it would only be able to cover about 60% of beneficiaries in a single month, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP), a think-tank focused on policies that help low-income families.
Judge Talwani has asked the administration to report on Monday whether it will use the fund to pay reduced benefits or if it will pay full benefits for the month by moving money from other programmes, similar to the administration transferring military research funds earlier this month to pay members of the armed forces.
Separately in Rhode Island, a lawsuit was brought by a number of US cities and NGOs who sued over what they called the “unlawful suspension” of the programme.
“There is no doubt and it is beyond argument that irreparable harm will begin to occur if it hasn’t already occurred in the terror it has caused some people about the availability of funding for food, for their family,” US District Judge John McConnell said.
The White House and the USDA did not comment on the decisions. The BBC has also contacted the Office of Management and Budget for comment.
At a news conference before the rulings were issued, Rollins said “we’re looking at all the options” when asked whether the administration would comply if courts required it to release funds.
On Friday, the group behind the lawsuit filed in Rhode Island said in a statement that the ruling “is a lifeline for millions of families, seniors, and veterans who depend on SNAP to put food on the table”.
“It reaffirms a fundamental principle: no administration can use hunger as a political weapon.”
Republicans and Democrats have traded blame for the federal shutdown, which will soon enter its second month, and there has not been any meaningful progress toward a deal.
