SNAP is shut down as of November 1

Diogenes

Diogenes

Nemo me impune lacessit
  • The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has instructed states to halt processing and issuance of SNAP benefits for November starting November 1, 2025, due to exhausted federal funding for the month. This affects approximately 42 million recipients across 22 million households, who rely on about $8–9 billion in monthly benefits.

  • Why This Is Happening: The Schumer shutdown, which began on October 1, 2025, has depleted available funds. The USDA's $6 billion contingency reserve cannot legally be used for regular monthly benefits.

  • What Happens Next: If the shutdown ends before November payments are due (typically staggered by state from November 1–23), benefits could resume with possible delays or retroactive issuance.
    • Missed November benefits are expected to be issued retroactively once funding is restored, but timing is uncertain.
    • Leftover funds from October or prior months on EBT cards remain usable and do not expire for a full year.
 
States are responding variably, with some using emergency funds to bridge the gap, while others will not.
  • Michigan: No state funding; pause expected. Affects 1.4 million residents; food banks bracing for surge.
  • Florida: No action yet; emergency declaration urged. Serves 4+ million; average benefit ~$190/person/month.
  • New York: Legal challenge; no funding. Impacts 1.7 million; new work requirements add pressure.
  • Virginia: State emergency declared. Using state funds to cover benefits temporarily.
  • Colorado: Partial support. Gov. requested $10 million for food banks.
  • Connecticut: Pause after Oct. 31. Applications accepted, but benefits delayed until shutdown ends.
  • Oregon/Idaho: Full pause. 750,000+ in Oregon affected; food pantries expect 20–50% demand increase.
  • Rhode Island: Pause expected. 140,000 residents at risk.
  • 25 Democrat-dominated demesnes (including Washington D.C.): Venue-shopping for hacktivist court order.
National Impact: An estimated 80 - 97% of benefits are spent in the issuance month, so many households will run out quickly. This will affect farmers and other food producers, food distributors, the transportation sector, and retail stores (reduced revenue) and increased reliance on food pantries, which provide far less (e.g., 1 meal per 9 from SNAP).

Democrats are hoping that by blaming Republicans for the losses, they can take control of Congress next January and either hamstring President Trump or impeach him.
 
Democrats have begged an Obama judge for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO),to force USDA to shell out $9+ immediately.

Ruling is imminent.
 
Here's where we are right now.

SNAP funding will not possibly be restored until Congress reconvenes on November 4, unless their captive Obamunist judge orders SNAP funding be restored immediately.

The midterms are imminent and they are hoping that by blaming Republicans for the losses, they can take control of Congress next January and either hamstring President Trump or impeach him.

SNAP's November issuance is officially paused starting the 1st, per USDA. The $6 billion contingency reserve is off-limits for regular benefits, and that's the flashpoint for the lawsuit from 25+ Democrat-led states and D.C., filed Tuesday in Massachusetts federal court.

The venue for the suit was carefully chosen. This is classic venue-shopping, and this one's got all the hallmarks.

Filing in Boston's U.S. District Court (District of Massachusetts) wasn't random; it's a masterclass in picking a friendly forum where the plaintiffs, led by AG Andrea Joy Campbell, hold home-field advantage.

With blue Massachusetts ground zero for the suit (hosting the rally, the pressers, and a governor who's been vocal about the "inhumane" fallout), it's no surprise they anchored it there under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e) for suits against federal agencies.

The hook? Venue's proper in any district where a plaintiff resides, and with the Mass. AG as lead, that box is checked, while dodging circuits like the D.C. or Fifth, which might lean more skeptical of aggressive APA (https://guides.library.cornell.edu/citing_us_gov_docs/lawsStatutes) challenges.

The assignment to Judge Indira Talwani? That's the cherry on top. An Obama appointee (confirmed in 2014), she's got a track record on administrative law that's Democrat-plaintiff-friendly.

In the District of Massachusetts, cases are randomly assigned, but the pool is heavily comprised of Democrat appointees. The odds of drawing a judge sympathetic to mandatory spending arguments? Much higher than in, say, the Northern District of Texas.
  • Holding agencies to strict APA compliance
  • Rejecting arbitrary delays in benefit programs
  • Granting preliminary injunctions in emergency entitlement cases
Democrats are pushing hard for an emergency injunction by week's end, arguing the funds must flow under the Food and Nutrition Act—echoing precedents you likely navigated in past cycles. A favorable ruling from Judge Talwani could override the Congressional reconvene deadline and keep those EBT cards loaded, thereby avoiding any stigma they'd otherwise face for "starving the hungry".

The blue team is gunning for an emergency TRO by Friday (November 1), citing the Food and Nutrition Act's plain text on contingency funds for "program operations" during lapses, citing precedents like the 2019 shutdown where courts forced WIC continuity.

The complaint cites 2018–2019 shutdown cases where courts (including in D. Mass.) ordered USDA to tap contingency funds for SNAP and WIC. Talwani herself has ruled against federal agencies for procedural overreach, giving plaintiffs a credible path to a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) by November 1.

Boston is a Democrat-dominated media hub. A ruling forcing USDA to release the $6 billion contingency reserve would dominate national headlines, framing the administration as defying law, while a loss would be buried by the Democrat's willing media shills.

The government will likely move to transfer to D.C. (arguing it’s the “real” seat of agency action), but courts rarely grant such motions when plaintiffs have a statutory hook and irreparable harm is imminent (42 million people losing food benefits qualifies).
 
Update:

  • During a one-hour hearing before U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani (an Obama appointee) yesterday, lawyers for Democrat-dominated states and the District of Columbia pressed for the TRO.
  • Justice Department attorney Jason Altabet argued the USDA lacks authority without congressional appropriations, but Judge Talwani predictably ignored this, demanding to know why contingency funds couldn't cover partial payments (e.g., two-thirds of the shortfall). She knows why, so this was all for show. She indicated she planned to issue a ruling yesterday (October 30) on the TRO request, but didn't.
  • As of October 31, no decision has been publicly reported. If granted, the TRO could compel the USDA to release funds imminently, potentially averting full suspension and give the Democrats a propaganda tool they will use to portray themselves as the saviors of the poor, even though they forced the shutdown themselves. In my view, this was part of the plan from the outset. This wasn’t just venue selection; it’s forum engineering. Democrats picked the court, shaped the narrative, forced USDA’s hand. The Democrats didn’t stumble into this. They built the off-ramp and made sure it led straight through a friendly courthouse, past a sympathetic judge, and into their campaign ads, which I don't doubt have already been scripted, shot, and distributed to the media for immediate release once their pet judge rules in their favor.
  • If Talwani grants the TRO, SNAP flows Friday, Congress is sidelined, and the political blame game flips. A decision could come within 24–48 hours.
  • A denial (unlikely, IMO) would probably lead to further frantic appeals and further delays, leaving states to rely on limited emergency reserves (e.g., Virginia and Hawaii have already tapped theirs, but sustainability is uncertain). The USDA has already stated states can't be reimbursed if they front costs while the Schumer shutdown drags on.
 
Diogenes said:
Update:

  • During a one-hour hearing before U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani (an Obama appointee) yesterday, lawyers for Democrat-dominated states and the District of Columbia pressed for the TRO.
  • Justice Department attorney Jason Altabet argued the USDA lacks authority without congressional appropriations, but Judge Talwani predictably ignored this, demanding to know why contingency funds couldn't cover partial payments (e.g., two-thirds of the shortfall). She knows why, so this was all for show. She indicated she planned to issue a ruling yesterday (October 30) on the TRO request, but didn't.
  • As of October 31, no decision has been publicly reported. If granted, the TRO could compel the USDA to release funds imminently, potentially averting full suspension and give the Democrats a propaganda tool they will use to portray themselves as the saviors of the poor, even though they forced the shutdown themselves. In my view, this was part of the plan from the outset. This wasn’t just venue selection; it’s forum engineering. Democrats picked the court, shaped the narrative, forced USDA’s hand. The Democrats didn’t stumble into this. They built the off-ramp and made sure it led straight through a friendly courthouse, past a sympathetic judge, and into their campaign ads, which I don't doubt have already been scripted, shot, and distributed to the media for immediate release once their pet judge rules in their favor.
  • If Talwani grants the TRO, SNAP flows Friday, Congress is sidelined, and the political blame game flips. A decision could come within 24–48 hours.
  • A denial (unlikely, IMO) would probably lead to further frantic appeals and further delays, leaving states to rely on limited emergency reserves (e.g., Virginia and Hawaii have already tapped theirs, but sustainability is uncertain). The USDA has already stated states can't be reimbursed if they front costs while the Schumer shutdown drags on.
Click to expand...
Biased judges drive me crazy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top