Over Twenty States Sue White House as Food Stamp Payments Halted Amid Shutdown
biguglybill #bigbeautifulbill #Trumpdictator #SNAP #USdebt #GovernmentShutdown #WhiteHouseBallroom
Federal food assistance benefits for low-income families set to expire on 1 November due to government shutdown
In a significant legal and political escalation, attorneys general from more than twenty states have filed a joint lawsuit against the Trump administration, challenging the suspension of food stamp payments during the ongoing government shutdown. The legal action underscores the deepening humanitarian and constitutional crisis unfolding across the nation as vital safety nets fray.
The lawsuit, led by a coalition of Democratic-led states, argues that the administration's decision to halt funding for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) is not only a catastrophic policy failure but also a violation of federal law. The plaintiffs contend that the executive branch lacks the legal authority to unilaterally cease distributions for a Congressionally-mandated entitlement program, regardless of a lapse in appropriations.
"The White House is playing politics with the lives of millions of Americans," stated one attorney general in a press conference. "This is not a partisan issue; it is a matter of basic human dignity and legal responsibility. By cutting off access to food, the administration has overstepped its bounds and forced our hand to seek judicial intervention."
The immediate trigger for the lawsuit was the administration's announcement that SNAP benefits for the upcoming month could not be fully funded due to the shutdown. This has thrown the nutritional security of over 40 million low-income individuals, including children, the elderly, and people with disabilities, into severe jeopardy. Food banks nationwide report being overwhelmed, unable to meet the surging demand.
The legal challenge is likely to focus on the Administrative Procedure Act, arguing that the decision to suspend benefits was "arbitrary and capricious" and an abuse of discretion. The states will also argue that the move violates the fundamental purpose of the SNAP statute, which was established by Congress to safeguard against hunger.
The White House has defended its position, stating that without a spending bill passed by Congress, certain programs lack the necessary legal authority to disburse funds. However, critics counter that the administration has previously found mechanisms to fund other priorities during shutdowns and is choosing not to do so for SNAP.
This multi-state lawsuit represents one of the largest legal rebellions against the administration's handling of the shutdown. It signals that state governments are prepared to act as a check on federal power when they perceive a failure to protect their citizens. As the case moves swiftly through the courts, its outcome will have profound implications, not just for the millions awaiting food assistance, but for the balance of power between the branches of government during a period of intense political dysfunction.