The U.S. Department of Agriculture's decision to suspend Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits amid the ongoing government shutdown is an abuse of discretion that threatens to take food away from millions of people, according to a lawsuit filed Tuesday by 25 states and the District of Columbia.

The coalition of mostly Democratic-led states sued USDA, the U.S. Office of Management and Budget and their leaders in the District of Massachusetts, seeking a declaration that the upcoming suspension of SNAP benefits on Nov. 1 is "both contrary to law and arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act." Congress has appropriated $6 billion for a SNAP contingency fund and USDA has enough money in a different reserve, called a Section 32 fund, to cover November's benefits, the complaint says.

"Suspending benefits will ultimately transfer costs to state and local governments and community organizations, as families increasingly rely on emergency services and public safety net programs, such as local food pantries," the complaint says. "These food banks are already under strain after USDA cut $500 million in food deliveries earlier this year."

The states noted that USDA has already tapped into its Section 32 fund to provide money for the Women, Infants, and Children program.

The government shutdown began Oct. 1 when federal appropriations lapsed because Congress did not pass a funding bill. The states' complaint notes that "SNAP benefits have never been interrupted by a lapse in appropriations."

A USDA spokesperson told Law360 in a statement that "an inflection point" is approaching for Senate Democrats, saying they can "continue to hold out for the far-left wing of the party or reopen the government so mothers, babies, and the most vulnerable among us can receive timely WIC and SNAP allotments."

The spokesperson also provided a USDA handout that said under current law, states cannot be reimbursed if they fund the benefits themselves, and the contingency funds cannot cover regular benefits.

"SNAP contingency funds are only available to supplement regular monthly benefits when amounts have been appropriated for, but are insufficient to cover, benefits," the document said. "The contingency fund is not available to support FY 2026 regular benefits, because the appropriation for regular benefits no longer exists."

An OMB spokesperson also blamed Democrats for the impending suspension, telling Law360 in a statement that they "chose to shut down the government knowing full well that SNAP would soon run out of funds."

"It doesn't have to be this way, and it's sad they are using the families who rely on it as pawns," the statement said.

Each state administers its own SNAP program to distribute federal funds to eligible recipients. The complaint says 25 million people in the plaintiff states receive SNAP food assistance.

Connecticut Attorney General William Tong said in a statement that the administration's directive is "unconscionable." About 366,000 people in the state receive SNAP benefits each month on average, including 120,000 children, according to the complaint.

"There are billions of dollars in contingency funds, paid for by taxpayers and appropriated by Congress sitting there to help American families buy food at a time when grocery prices are already out of control," Tong said. "[President Donald] Trump has no right to block these funds and we're not going to let him use our families as political bargaining chips."

New Jersey Attorney General Matthew J. Platkin's office said nearly 813,000 people in his state received SNAP in August, including more than 340,000 children and nearly 177,000 elderly people.

"This is especially devastating in the month of November, when families are gathering and demands on food banks and pantries are heaviest," Platkin said.

The lawsuit comes the same day 19 attorneys general, representing mostly Republican-led states, wrote a letter to Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., seeking "urgent humanitarian assistance" in response to the expected crisis. That assistance should take the form of a clean continuing resolution to reopen the government and keep SNAP funded, the letter said.

Authored by Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost, the letter said 15.6 million people in the 19 states will lose access to SNAP if the shutdown continues into November.

"No family should go hungry because Washington lacks the appetite for consensus," Yost said in a statement. "It is imperative that Congress takes immediate action to ensure the continuation of SNAP funding. The wellbeing of countless Americans hinges on their actions, and the time to prevent further suffering is now."

Kentucky is both a signatory of the letter to Schumer and a plaintiff in the Tuesday lawsuit.

The complaint said the suspension will harm tens of thousands of retailers who accept SNAP, and erode public trust in the program. The states will also be required to continue administering the program, such as by accepting applications and communicating with recipients, and they expect to be unable to recoup those costs.

"Shutting off SNAP benefits will cause deterioration of public health and wellbeing. Ultimately, the states will bear costs associated with many of these harms," the complaint says, citing "food insecurity, hunger, and malnutrition, which are associated with numerous negative health outcomes in children, such as poor concentration, decreased cognitive function, fatigue, depression, and behavioral problems."

The plaintiff states are Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin and the District of Columbia.

Signatories of the letter include the attorneys general of Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, Mississippi, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Virginia and West Virginia.

The states are represented by their respective attorneys general or governors' offices.

Counsel information for the government was not immediately available.

The case is Commonwealth of Massachusetts et al v. United States Department of Agriculture et al, case number 1:25-cv-13165, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

--Editing by Alanna Weissman.