The Trump administration has faced at least four major lawsuits over the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program since mid-2025, and it has lost the key rulings in each. Federal judges ordered the U.S. Department of Agriculture to fund SNAP benefits during the October–November 2025 government shutdown, extended the compliance window for new immigrant eligibility restrictions, blocked the agency from tying nutrition funding to state policies on gender and immigration, and struck down USDA-approved waivers that let five states bar SNAP recipients from buying soda and candy.
The Shutdown Lawsuits Over Withheld November Benefits
The most consequential litigation grew out of the 43-day federal shutdown that began October 1, 2025. On October 24, the USDA reversed a plan it had published on September 30 and announced that it could not legally tap the roughly $6 billion SNAP contingency reserve to pay November benefits for the program’s 42 million participants. Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins said the reserve was reserved for disasters and that the department lacked the roughly $9.2 billion needed for a full month.
Two separate lawsuits followed within a week.
Massachusetts: Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. USDA
On October 28, 2025, a coalition of 25 states and the District of Columbia sued in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. They argued the refusal to use the contingency fund was contrary to law and arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act, and pointed out that SNAP had never before been interrupted by a shutdown. They also noted the administration had continued funding aid to farmers and the WIC nutrition program.
U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani held a hearing on October 30 and ruled the USDA’s reading of the law “erroneous.” She found federal law required the agency to reduce benefits if funds ran short, not suspend the program entirely, and ordered the department to use the contingency reserve.
Rhode Island: Rhode Island State Council of Churches v. Rollins
A parallel suit brought by the Rhode Island State Council of Churches, the National Council of Nonprofits, SEIU, and the cities of Columbus, Baltimore, Albuquerque, and Providence produced the sharper ruling. Chief Judge John J. McConnell Jr. issued a temporary restraining order on October 31 requiring distribution of the contingency funds. When the USDA responded by agreeing to pay only about 65 percent of normal allotments using the remaining $4.65 billion, McConnell issued a second order on November 6.
He called the partial-payment decision “arbitrary and capricious” and wrote that the agency, “faced with a choice between advancing relief and entrenching delay, it chose the latter.” He ordered the USDA to combine the contingency fund with money from the Section 32 account, a pool of over $23 billion in tariff revenue used mainly for child nutrition programs, and to pay full November benefits by November 7.
The Supreme Court and the Shutdown’s End
The administration asked the Supreme Court for an emergency stay. Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued the order made “a mockery of the separation of powers” and would encourage similar suits from other program beneficiaries. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson issued a brief administrative stay on November 7 to let the First Circuit rule.
The First Circuit denied the government’s stay request on November 9, finding the harm to beneficiaries, including 14 million children, weighed heavily against a stay and calling the government’s warnings about depleting child nutrition funds speculative, since Section 32 would still hold about $20 billion after the transfer. The Supreme Court extended its administrative stay through November 13, with Justice Jackson noting she would have denied the extension outright.
The dispute never reached a merits decision. On November 12, 2025, President Trump signed the Continuing Appropriations Act (H.R. 5371), ending the shutdown and funding SNAP through September 30, 2026. The administration withdrew its Supreme Court application the next day.
The Immigrant Eligibility Lawsuit
A second front opened over how the USDA interpreted the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” the tax and spending law Trump signed July 4, 2025, which cut SNAP by an estimated $187 billion over ten years and narrowed noncitizen eligibility.
On November 26, 2025, attorneys general from 21 states and the District of Columbia sued in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon, challenging USDA guidance issued October 31, 2025. The states argued the guidance went further than the statute by treating lawful permanent residents, including refugees and asylum seekers, as permanently ineligible, and that it denied states the 120-day grace period the law required for implementation. A judge later ordered the USDA to extend the hold-harmless period for the 21 plaintiff states through April 9, 2026.
The Funding-Conditions Lawsuit
In March 2026, twenty states and the District of Columbia sued the USDA in Massachusetts federal court over an agency attempt to condition SNAP and other nutrition program funding on state compliance with federal policies on gender, immigration, and women’s athletics. The states said the conditions were vague, extraneous, and unreasoned, and that they forced a choice between adopting the administration’s political positions and losing up to $74 billion in collective nutrition assistance.
On June 5, 2026, U.S. District Judge Myong Joun issued a preliminary injunction blocking the conditions.
The Food-Restriction Waivers Lawsuit
The USDA had approved pilot projects in Colorado, Iowa, Nebraska, Tennessee, and West Virginia that barred SNAP recipients from buying items such as soda, candy, and energy drinks. Five SNAP participants, represented by the National Center for Law and Economic Justice, sued in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in March 2026.
On June 22, 2026, Judge Amy Berman Jackson granted summary judgment for the plaintiffs. She ruled the USDA had relied on a statutory provision meant for administrative efficiency projects rather than the stricter provision governing nutrition-focused pilots, and that it violated procedural rules by failing to publish notice in the Federal Register before approving projects with significant public impact. The ruling voids the waivers in the five challenged states; waivers in other states remain in effect unless separately challenged or withdrawn by the USDA.
What the Rulings Mean Going Forward
The shutdown litigation ended without an appellate decision on the merits, so the question of whether the USDA can withhold SNAP during a future funding lapse has not been definitively answered by a higher court. The Rhode Island district court’s reading — that the agency must deploy contingency and Section 32 funds — stands as the last word from a federal judge, and the appropriations law now funds SNAP through September 30, 2026.
The other three cases target ongoing implementation of the 2025 spending law and USDA policy, and each produced injunctions or judgments that limit the agency rather than resolve the underlying statutory questions. More disputes are likely as new state cost-sharing rules take effect in fiscal years 2027 and 2028: states with payment error rates above 6 percent will owe 5 to 15 percent of benefit costs, exposure that ranges from $5.5 million for North Dakota to nearly $2 billion for California. Between the law’s enactment and early 2026, SNAP participation dropped by more than 3 million people, an 8 percent decline, with Arizona alone down more than 50 percent. More than a quarter of states surveyed by the American Public Human Services Association said they may narrow eligibility to manage the new costs, and four said they may consider leaving SNAP altogether.