SNAP Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program is shown using the text. SNAP provides food benefits to low-income families in US (Photo by Andrii Dodonov)
By Stacy M. Brown
Black Press USA Senior National Correspondent
Twenty-five attorneys general across the country and three governors have filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Agriculture and its Secretary, Brooke Rollins, after the agency moved to suspend the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, better known as SNAP, which helps more than 40 million Americans buy food each month.
The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Massachusetts, argues that Rollins and the USDA unlawfully halted the program despite having billions of dollars in contingency funds that Congress specifically approved for emergencies like the current federal government shutdown. It names both the USDA and the Office of Management and Budget, led by Russell Vought, as defendants, accusing them of violating federal law and the Administrative Procedure Act by arbitrarily denying food assistance to millions of people who depend on it. “SNAP is the largest anti-hunger program in D.C., and if these cuts are allowed to go through, tens of thousands of District children, seniors, and families will be unable to afford food,” said District of Columbia Attorney General Brian Schwalb. “The adverse downstream impacts on public health, education, and public safety will be immediate, catastrophic, and irreparable. Additionally, the economic impact on our local business community will be severe as hundreds of SNAP retailers, including many that operate in food deserts, will lose a vital revenue stream. If these stores are forced to close, even non-SNAP recipients will lose access to critical sources of food.”
According to the complaint, the USDA ordered states on October 24 to suspend all November SNAP benefit allotments until further notice, claiming insufficient funding due to the lapse in congressional appropriations. But attorneys general in 25 jurisdictions argue that the agency’s position is both unlawful and immoral, as Congress has already provided two separate $3 billion contingency reserves specifically to cover such emergencies. The complaint further alleges that the USDA has tapped other emergency funds to reopen farm service offices and finance other programs during the shutdown, while refusing to use similar funds to feed families. For the District of Columbia and so many others, the impact will be devastating. In fiscal year 2025, an average of 141,000 D.C. residents relied on SNAP each month, including 47,000 children and 24,000 elderly individuals. The suspension will also cripple the local economy. More than 420 local retailers, including over 320 small “mom and pop” stores operating in food deserts, depend heavily on SNAP purchases. Many already run on razor-thin margins, and without those sales, they risk permanent closure.
The coalition argues that the USDA’s decision defies decades of precedent. During every prior government shutdown, SNAP has continued to operate, and the agency has always used available funds to prevent hunger. This is the first time in history that benefits have been interrupted since the program’s inception in 1964. The 51-page lawsuit paints a dire picture. It notes that even as the USDA claims poverty, its contingency accounts hold billions of unused dollars, including a $23 billion “Section 32” fund drawn from customs receipts and agricultural tariffs. The agency recently used part of that fund to cover the Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) program through October, but refused to extend the same courtesy to SNAP recipients. The suit argues that this selective funding violates both federal law and the agency’s duty to act rationally and in good faith.
Food banks, many already overwhelmed, are bracing for surges in demand. Governors in several plaintiff states, including California and Minnesota, have already deployed emergency funds to keep families fed. Schwalb warned that the consequences go beyond hunger. “The ripple effects of this decision will reach every corner of our city,” he said. “Children who are hungry cannot learn, seniors will face life-threatening health risks, and small businesses will go under. This fight is about basic human decency and about keeping food on the table for those who need it most.”