A member of the National Guard packs food at a Los Angeles Regional Food Bank facility, as nearly 42 million Americans face a potential lapse in Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits, known as food stamps, due to the second-longest U.S. government shutdown, in Los Angeles, California, U.S., October 29, 2025. REUTERS/Daniel Cole

By Nate Raymond

BOSTON (Reuters) -A federal judge in Boston began hearing arguments on Thursday on whether she should block President Donald Trump's administration from moving forward with plans to fully suspend food aid for millions of Americans starting on Saturday amid the ongoing government shutdown.

Lawyers for 25 Democratic-led states and the District of Columbia during a hearing in Boston urged U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani to force the U.S. Department of Agriculture to use $5.25 billion in contingency funds to pay for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, also known as food stamps, which nearly 42 million low-income Americans rely on.

“Millions of Americans are going to lose benefits they’ve had for decades," Michelle Pascucci, a lawyer with the Massachusetts' attorney general's office, said.

She said by law, the contingency funds must be used to keep funding SNAP benefits and that it is "an abuse of discretion to not use those funds in this instance."

Talwani, who was appointed by Democratic President Barack Obama, appeared skeptical of arguments by Justice Department attorney Jason Altabet that the contingency funds could not be used to fund SNAP benefits during the shutdown.

"You have money that was appropriated that could be used during this fiscal year," she said during the ongoing hearing.

The USDA's shutdown plan, released last month, had said contingency funds were available to keep funding SNAP benefits in the event Congress did not enact spending legislation that would avert the lapse in funding that began October 1.

But on Saturday the department updated its website to say no benefits would be issued on November 1 as scheduled, stating "the well has run dry." It would mark the first lapse in payments due to a government shutdown in the program's 60-year history.

The states sued on Tuesday. They are asking Talwani to issue a temporary restraining order that would allow them to continue to administer SNAP benefits in November.

SNAP benefits are available to Americans whose income is less than 130% of the federal poverty line, or $1,632 a month for a one-person household, or $2,215 for a two-person household in many areas. States are responsible for the day-to-day administration of the benefits, which are paid out monthly.

Democrats and Republicans in Congress have traded blame for the shutdown and for the risk that SNAP benefits could lapse as the funding impasse continues.

USDA has said insufficient funds exist to pay full benefits to all 42 million Americans. SNAP benefits cost $8.5 billion to $9 billion per month, according to the administration.

But the states, led by Massachusetts, California, Arizona and Minnesota, say the lapse is unnecessary given the existence of the contingency funds, which would cover a portion of the benefits and by law are intended to be used as “necessary to carry out program operations."

The states argue the suspension of benefits is arbitrary and is being carried out in violation of the law and regulations governing SNAP, which they say only allow USDA to suspend benefits when funding is unavailable.

They argue that USDA lacks the discretion to stop funding benefits absent a complete lack of funding and by law must continue paying out as long as Congress has appropriated funds that can be used for those purposes.

The states are not asking for a nationwide block on the administration's action but instead are seeking a ruling that only applies to the states that sued.

The Justice Department, in a filing late Wednesday, argued that a ruling in the states' favor would result in an "operationally fraught" situation for USDA and would deplete funds available for disaster food relief.

The Justice Department also argued that allowing the system to run with full benefit amounts during the shutdown would violate the Antideficiency Act, which bars agencies from spending funds in excess of available appropriations.

(Reporting by Nate Raymond in Boston, Editing by Alexia Garamfalvi and Deepa Babington)