The Trump administration is facing mounting legal pressure after low-income Americans filed a federal class-action lawsuit demanding the immediate reinstatement of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits, which were halted amid the ongoing government shutdown. The lawsuit, filed in Oakland, California, accuses administration officials of violating federal law by withholding food benefits that millions depend on to eat.

The case, Perrone v. Rollins, underscores the growing human and political costs of the funding stalemate in Washington. With more than 42 million Americans enrolled in SNAP, even a brief disruption in benefits threatens widespread food insecurity, especially for households already on the financial edge.

Conflicting Signals and Rising Legal Tensions

The controversy intensified after President Donald Trump posted on his social media platform that SNAP benefits would remain frozen until Democrats in Congress agreed to end the shutdown, effectively tying basic food aid to political negotiations. The statement sparked national outrage and drew swift legal action from advocacy groups representing low-income families.

Hours later, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt attempted to soften the message, announcing that the administration would seek to restore partial benefits, though she offered no specific timeline. “It’s going to take some time,” Leavitt said, adding to confusion over whether payments would resume in full.

According to the complaint, such ambiguity directly violates federal statutes under the Food and Nutrition Act, which require that SNAP benefits be distributed “in full and on time, whether or not Congress appropriates funds through an annual appropriations act or continuing resolution.”

Lawyers for the plaintiffs, representing SNAP beneficiaries across several states, argued that “Americans should not go hungry because Congress cannot agree on a federal budget.” The filing emphasizes that the administration’s partial payment plan constitutes unlawful noncompliance with existing court orders.

Courts Step In as Shutdown Fallout Deepens

The lawsuit follows two prior federal court rulings ordering the administration to restore full SNAP benefits, both of which were allegedly ignored over the weekend. According to court filings, the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) — which administers the program — informed the courts that recipients would receive only half their normal benefits for November, leaving millions scrambling to afford groceries.

Legal experts note that such defiance could carry significant consequences. “If the administration continues to disregard judicial directives, it risks a constitutional confrontation over executive authority and the separation of powers,” said Daniel Chen, a constitutional law professor at Stanford University.

The case adds another layer of complexity to an already volatile political environment, with the shutdown’s economic ripple effects now extending to food supply chains and grocery retailers who depend heavily on SNAP spending.

Political Stakes and Human Consequences

Beyond the courtroom, the lawsuit reignites a broader debate over the intersection of welfare policy and political brinkmanship. SNAP, which costs roughly $120 billion annually, has long been a focal point of partisan disputes over social spending. Yet rarely has access to food assistance been so directly tied to political negotiations.

Analysts warn that a prolonged standoff could not only deepen food insecurity among vulnerable households but also erode public trust in government institutions. “When millions of Americans are told they may not get the means to feed their families because of political posturing, it undermines faith in the entire system,” said policy researcher Elena Torres of the Urban Institute.

For now, the plaintiffs are seeking an emergency injunction to compel the administration to immediately resume payments. With two courts already siding with SNAP recipients, further delays could expose the government to contempt proceedings and intensify public backlash.

As legal proceedings advance, the case could become a defining moment in the broader struggle over how far executive power can stretch in times of fiscal paralysis — and how much hardship ordinary Americans must bear as a result.