Two federal judges have mandated that the Trump administration continue funding for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), known as CalFresh in California. This decision aims to ensure that benefits remain available amid a looming financial shortfall affecting the state. California, along with 24 other states, had filed a lawsuit against the administration, arguing that it must restore funding for the vital program, which supports over 5 million residents, including approximately 2 million children.
With a critical deadline approaching on November 1, 2023, and a government shutdown now in its second month, food banks in the Bay Area have intensified their efforts to support the roughly half a million individuals reliant on these benefits. On Friday, the judges ruled that emergency funds should be utilized to sustain SNAP benefits, which serve one in eight Americans nationally.
Rep. Lateefah Simon (D-Oakland) addressed the situation during a press conference, emphasizing the commitment of her community to support those affected. “So while there may be a gap, we don’t even know what that gap may be, maybe hours, maybe days, we will take care of our own,” she stated. Simon also indicated her plans to return to Washington, D.C. to advocate for her constituents and ensure their needs are addressed.
In a parallel effort, Regi Young, executive director of the Alameda County Community Food Bank, highlighted ongoing initiatives to purchase and distribute food throughout the region. “Right now, we are mobilizing our network,” Young said, underscoring the urgency of the situation for families depending on these benefits.
The judges have requested an update from the Trump administration by the following Monday. President Trump, in response, attributed the challenges to “radical Democrats” who he claimed are obstructing the re-opening of the government. He stated that while his administration would comply with the court’s ruling, it requires further clarity before proceeding. On his platform, Truth Social, he noted, “even if we get immediate guidance, it will unfortunately be delayed while States get the money out.”
Legal experts have weighed in on the judges’ decision. David Levine, a professor at UC Law San Francisco, remarked on the administration’s reaction. “In a way, it’s just second-guessing the judges right? What the President said is, we don’t think we have this power. Well, these two judges have said, yes, you do, at least on an emergency basis,” Levine explained.
For many families, the uncertainty surrounding SNAP benefits remains a significant concern. Annie Banks, a coalition and community partnerships organizer with Parent Voices Oakland, expressed relief over the court’s ruling but acknowledged the ongoing anxiety families face. “Even just knowing the stress of knowing that your benefits may not be there next month… to think that your child is going to go hungry is a really just an evil form of suffering,” Banks stated. The group operates a food pantry available to families in need, although the timeline for reloading CalFresh debit cards remains uncertain, with a typical processing period of one to two weeks.
The SNAP program incurs national costs of approximately $8 billion per month, with emergency funds covering about $5 billion of this expenditure. As the situation unfolds, the implications of the judges’ ruling will be closely monitored, particularly for those depending on this critical support during challenging times.
