Federal Judge Questions Trump Administration's "All-or-Nothing" Stance on SNAP Benefits
As 41 million Americans face food assistance cutoff, Judge Talwani suggests partial payments may be legally required—but hearing won't occur until November 6.
A federal judge hearing an emergency lawsuit over SNAP benefits has signaled deep skepticism about the Trump administration’s position that it must either pay full food assistance or none at all—but her court won’t rule on the matter until November 6, five days after benefits are scheduled to end for more than 40 million Americans.
Judge Indira Talwani’s remarks during the initial hearing suggest she may reject the administration’s binary framework entirely. According to reports from the Associated Press, the judge appeared “skeptical” of the government’s claim that it cannot make partial payments during the shutdown. She indicated that when funds are insufficient, the more logical legal interpretation would be to find an “equitable way of reducing benefits” rather than eliminating them entirely.
“If you don’t have money, you tighten your belt,” Judge Talwani said, according to the Washington Post. “You are not going to make everyone drop dead because it’s a political game someplace.”
The statement suggests the judge views this case as a public health crisis rather than a simple budgetary dispute—a framing that could prove decisive when she rules next Thursday. For Vermont residents among the one in eight Americans who depend on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, the judge’s skepticism offers hope, but the five-day delay raises urgent questions about why the court cannot act more quickly.
Why the Delay? The Legal and Constitutional Framework
The November 6 hearing date is not arbitrary. It reflects both the type of legal remedy being sought and the constitutional protections that apply even when the government is being sued.
According to reporting by CBS News, twenty-five states and the District of Columbia filed the federal lawsuit demanding that the Trump administration continue SNAP benefits during the government shutdown. The plaintiffs argue the administration has both the money and the legal obligation to maintain benefits. The administration contends federal law prohibits it from spending funds that Congress has not appropriated.
The Choice: Speed Versus Durability
Federal courts have two main tools for emergency intervention, according to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:
Temporary Restraining Orders (TROs) are the fastest option. In extreme cases, a judge can issue a TRO without even notifying the other side first. However, this extraordinary power is reserved for situations where giving notice might cause the opposing party to take harmful action, like destroying evidence. A TRO lasts only 14 days and serves simply to freeze the situation until a proper hearing can be held.
Preliminary Injunctions are more durable. They can last for the entire duration of a lawsuit—potentially months or years—until a final verdict is reached. Unlike TROs, preliminary injunctions cannot be issued without giving the opposing party notice and a chance to respond in court. This is a constitutional requirement known as due process.
The states chose to pursue a preliminary injunction rather than first requesting an emergency TRO. This was a calculated strategic decision. The government’s handling of SNAP funding is a public policy matter, not a secret action requiring a surprise court order. The Department of Justice is readily available to receive legal papers and appear in court. Any argument that notice to the government “should not be required” would almost certainly fail.
By seeking a preliminary injunction from the start, the states opted for the most effective legal path—one that provides a much higher probability of securing a meaningful, lasting court order that can withstand appeals. The perceived delay is the direct result of pursuing the stronger remedy.
The Constitutional Requirement: Due Process
According to the Legal Information Institute at Cornell Law School, the week between filing the lawsuit and the Thursday hearing represents the government’s constitutional right to due process. The U.S. Constitution requires that before a court can rule against any defendant, that defendant must receive notice of the claims and a fair opportunity to mount a defense.
During this period, Department of Justice attorneys must formally receive the lawsuit, review the legal claims made by 26 different plaintiffs, confer with U.S. Department of Agriculture officials about administrative constraints, research complex appropriations law, and prepare formal written arguments for the judge to review before the hearing.
For a case of this magnitude—involving a major federal program, dozens of state governments, and billions of dollars—a one-week turnaround from filing to hearing represents an accelerated timeline by judicial standards. It signals the court is treating the matter with maximum urgency while still respecting fundamental procedural rights.
The Practical Reality: Judicial Caseloads
Federal judges manage enormous caseloads. According to U.S. Courts statistics, over 633,000 civil cases were pending in U.S. District Courts as of 2024—an increase of over 85% since 2015. Each judge oversees hundreds or thousands of cases simultaneously.
A judge’s calendar is finite and highly contested. Scheduling a major hearing often requires postponing other trials and hearings that are also critically important to those litigants. The court must follow established rules giving priority to, for example, ongoing trials or criminal cases where a defendant’s liberty is at stake.
The November 6 date represents Judge Talwani clearing her calendar and treating this matter with extraordinary urgency within a system managing vast competing obligations.
The Judge’s Skepticism: Why It Matters
Judge Talwani’s skepticism about the administration’s “all-or-nothing” position is significant for several reasons, particularly in light of the delay until November 6.
Creating a Third Path
By suggesting that partial benefits might be the appropriate solution when funds are insufficient, Judge Talwani is potentially creating a middle ground between the administration’s binary choice of full benefits or none. This challenges a core premise of the government’s defense.
The administration has argued that issuing partial payments would require complex recalculations that would be administratively burdensome and could take weeks to implement. However, if the judge’s preliminary view holds—that partial payments are both legally required and administratively feasible—the five-day delay itself becomes relevant evidence. If the administration can spend this week preparing legal arguments, it could also spend this time calculating reduced benefit amounts.
Signaling How She Views “Irreparable Harm”
The judge’s statement that the government cannot “make everyone drop dead because it’s a political game” suggests she is engaging with a broader understanding of harm beyond simple monetary loss—the central legal battleground in this case.
To win a preliminary injunction, the states must satisfy a rigorous four-part test applied in federal courts nationwide. The most critical element is demonstrating “irreparable harm”—injury that cannot be undone or adequately compensated with money later.
The administration will likely argue that the harm is purely monetary: the dollar value of missed SNAP benefits. Under traditional legal standards, temporary loss of income is generally not considered irreparable because the money can be paid back later.
The states will counter that the harm is not the loss of a check but the immediate consequences of hunger: malnutrition with lasting developmental and health impacts on children; deterioration of public health leading to increased healthcare costs; disruption of education for children who cannot learn when hungry; and immense stress on families and the social safety net. According to legal definitions provided by Cornell Law School, harms like deprivation of constitutional rights or significant public health damage are inherently irreparable.
Judge Talwani’s remarks suggest she may already view this case through that deeper lens—as a public health crisis rather than a payment dispute.
The Core Legal Arguments
The States’ Position
The 25 states and District of Columbia argue the Trump administration has both the funds and legal obligation to continue SNAP benefits.
According to CBS News reporting, the centerpiece of their argument is a SNAP contingency fund containing approximately $5 billion. The states contend this fund not only can be used during a funding lapse but must be used for this purpose. They also reference a separate fund with around $23 billion that may be available.
Critically, the states point to the administration’s own prior guidance. AP News reports that a USDA shutdown contingency plan dated September 30 explicitly stated that multi-year contingency funds were available and intended to fund participant benefits during a funding lapse. This document was later removed from the USDA website.
This reversal provides powerful evidence that the administration’s current position—that its hands are tied—represents a recent policy choice rather than a consistent interpretation of law. If the judge accepts this argument, it undermines the administration’s claim that it is merely following legal requirements rather than making discretionary policy decisions.
The Administration’s Defense
According to the U.S. Department of Justice, the Trump administration’s defense rests on federal appropriations law, particularly the Antideficiency Act, which prohibits federal agencies from spending funds not appropriated by Congress. With the fiscal year 2026 appropriation having lapsed due to the shutdown, the administration argues it is legally barred from making SNAP payments.
According to reporting by the Washington Post, a USDA memo argues the contingency fund is not “legally available” for regular benefits during a shutdown and is reserved for unforeseen emergencies like natural disasters, not to substitute for congressional appropriations.
The administration has also raised a practical objection: because the contingency fund is insufficient to cover a full month of benefits, issuing partial payments would require complex recalculations that would be administratively burdensome and could take weeks to implement.
However, Judge Talwani’s skepticism of the “all-or-nothing” position directly challenges this argument. Her suggestion that finding an “equitable way of reducing benefits” is the more logical legal interpretation implies that administrative complexity does not excuse legal obligations.
The Broader Constitutional Tension
This dispute reflects a deeper constitutional crisis. A government shutdown represents a failure of Congress to fulfill its duty of funding the government. The executive branch then faces difficult choices about which functions to maintain.
The administration’s position is that the Antideficiency Act legally ties its hands. However, its abrupt reversal of its own policy on the contingency fund suggests this is not merely passive acceptance of legislative failure but an active policy choice. By withholding benefits for a mandatory program like SNAP, the executive branch creates pressure on Congress—and on the American public—to resolve the impasse on terms favorable to the administration.
The lawsuit asks the judicial branch to intervene as a constitutional check on this assertion of executive power, arguing the administration is not merely following the law but reinterpreting it in a way that exceeds its authority and inflicts public harm for political leverage.
This is the context underlying Judge Talwani’s pointed remark about not making “everyone drop dead because it’s a political game.” It suggests she may view the administration’s position not as a good-faith legal interpretation but as weaponizing a mandatory assistance program for negotiating leverage.
What the States Must Prove
Beyond demonstrating irreparable harm, the states must satisfy three additional elements of the four-part test for a preliminary injunction:
Likelihood of success on the merits: The states must show they are likely to win the underlying lawsuit—that the administration has a clear legal duty to use available contingency funds to continue SNAP payments and that its refusal violates the law.
Balance of hardships: The judge must weigh the harm to 41 million SNAP recipients if the injunction is denied against the harm to the federal government if it is granted. The states will argue this balance overwhelmingly favors them. The harm to millions facing food insecurity is immediate and catastrophic, while the harm to the government from being ordered to follow what the states argue is the law is primarily administrative and financial.
Public interest: The court must consider whether an injunction serves the public interest. The states’ argument is straightforward: ensuring food security for one in eight Americans, maintaining public health, preventing children from going hungry, and providing stability for vulnerable families are all unequivocally in the public interest.
What Happens Next
Immediate Timeline:
November 1: SNAP benefits scheduled to end for approximately 41 million Americans
November 6: Federal court hearing on the states’ motion for preliminary injunction
Possible Outcomes from the November 6 Hearing:
If Judge Talwani grants the preliminary injunction, she would order the Trump administration to resume SNAP payments. Based on her comments during the initial hearing, she might order full payments if she finds sufficient funds exist, or she might order reduced “equitable” payments if she adopts her suggested approach to insufficient funding. Such an order would remain in effect throughout the lawsuit, potentially for months, until a final verdict is reached. The administration could appeal this decision to a higher court.
If Judge Talwani denies the preliminary injunction, SNAP benefits would remain suspended until either Congress passes a funding bill to end the shutdown or the lawsuit proceeds to a full trial and final judgment—a process that could take many months or years.
Given her expressed skepticism during the initial hearing, legal observers believe Judge Talwani is more likely to grant some form of relief, potentially creating a precedent for how courts interpret agency obligations during government shutdowns.
The Broader Legal Process:
Regardless of the preliminary injunction decision, the underlying lawsuit will continue. The November 6 hearing addresses only the emergency request to maintain benefits during the litigation—not the final resolution of whether the administration’s actions are lawful.
A final verdict would require additional proceedings, likely including formal discovery, additional hearings, and potentially a trial. That process could extend well beyond the current shutdown, assuming Congress eventually passes funding legislation.
Why the Delay Matters—and Why It Doesn’t:
The five-day gap between November 1 and the hearing creates a period when benefits will be disrupted for millions of Americans. This will cause real hardship and stress for families, increased demand on food banks, and potential health consequences.
However, preliminary injunctions, once granted, carry significant legal weight. Unlike a TRO, which lasts only days, a preliminary injunction can remain in effect throughout the entire lawsuit. If Judge Talwani rules in favor of the states on November 6, her order could ensure benefits continue—whether full or partial—for months while the case proceeds to final resolution. The one-week delay, while painful, may result in a more durable solution than a rushed temporary order.
Moreover, if the judge orders the administration to implement partial payments, the time spent preparing for the hearing becomes part of the evidence that such calculations are feasible despite claims of administrative complexity.
For Vermont SNAP Recipients:
Vermonters who rely on SNAP benefits should monitor announcements from the Vermont Department for Children and Families regarding benefit distribution. If benefits are disrupted on November 1, local food banks and emergency assistance programs may see increased demand. Community organizations across Vermont are preparing contingency support.
The court’s decision on November 6 will provide clarity on whether benefits resume immediately, whether they continue in reduced form as the judge suggested might be appropriate, or whether families must wait for either a congressional resolution or the conclusion of the full lawsuit.
Judge Talwani’s skepticism of the administration’s legal position offers hope that the court will order some form of continued benefits, but the outcome remains uncertain until she issues her formal ruling next Thursday.