US judge skeptical Trump administration can suspend food benefits

By Nate Raymond

BOSTON (Reuters) -A federal judge in Boston on Thursday said it appeared to her that President Donald Trump's administration cannot legally suspend all food aid for millions of Americans amid the ongoing government shutdown as it plans to do starting Saturday.

U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani said she planned to decide later on Thursday whether she should force the U.S. Department of Agriculture to use some of the $5.25 billion in contingency funds it has on hand to pay for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, also known as food stamps.

Lawyers for 25 Democratic-led states and the District of Columbia during an hour-long hearing asked the judge to issue a temporary restraining order that would ensure the government at least partially funds the SNAP benefits, which 42 million Americans rely upon.

The USDA has said insufficient funds exist to pay full benefits, which cost $8.5 billion to $9 billion per month. Justice Department attorney Jason Altabet told the judge that USDA lacked the authority to disburse any funds for the benefits until Congress passes a spending bill ending the shutdown that began October 1.

But Talwani, an appointee of Democratic President Barack Obama, questioned how the administration came to conclude it could pay out nothing at all when Congress provided the USDA with contingency funds it still has available in case of an emergency.

"It's hard for me to understand how this isn't an emergency when there’s no money and a lot of people are needing their SNAP benefits," she said.

The judge said Congress and USDA's own regulations instead appeared to intend for the agency to "tighten belts" if, for the first time in the SNAP program's history, it could no longer fully fund benefits for nearly 42 million low-income Americans.

"We're not going to make everyone drop dead because it’s a political game," she said.

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," prompting the states to sue on Tuesday.

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.

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."

“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 during the hearing.

She argued 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, even if it could only make a partial distribution.

Altabet, the Justice Department attorney, warned that a ruling in the states' favor would result in an operationally fraught situation for USDA, saying officials were "legitimately scared" if the antiquated systems some states use could handle an unprecedented partial benefits distribution.

"The agency thinks it would be catastrophic," he said.

While the temporary restraining order the states had proposed would only apply to them, Talwani said that the way the law governing SNAP worked, any decision she issued would have a national impact as benefits cannot be reduced based on where people live or "what political party they are."

"I can’t consider this in only the terms of half the nation," she said.

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