October 28, 2025
Disclaimer
This article raises legal and moral questions; it does not constitute legal advice. Readers concerned about their rights or considering litigation should consult a qualified attorney licensed in their jurisdiction.
If 42 Million SNAP Recipients Lose Food Assistance, Who Bears Responsibility?
“Woe to those who enact unjust decrees… to turn aside the needy from justice and rob My people of their rights.” — Isaiah 10:1–2
As the federal government shutdown drags on, 42 million Americans who rely on SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) benefits face the unthinkable: their grocery money running out. Meanwhile, reports suggest that while ordinary families struggle, massive health-insurance corporations—UnitedHealth Group, Aetna, Cigna, Kaiser Permanente, and others—continue receiving automatic Treasury payments tied to Affordable Care Act tax-credit subsidies.
That has sparked a sobering question: If these corporations are influencing Congress to keep the government closed until their own funding streams are secured, could they eventually face legal or moral liability for violating the constitutional rights of SNAP recipients?
1. The Constitutional Question
Under Goldberg v. Kelly (1970), welfare benefits are a property interest protected by the Due Process Clause. Government cannot cut them off without notice and a hearing. No such notice has gone to 42 million Americans; no hearings have been offered.
The Supreme Court later ruled in Atkins v. Parker (1985) that when Congress changes a statute through legislation, the legislative process itself satisfies due process. But a shutdown is not legislation—it is paralysis. The Food and Nutrition Act still stands; no law repeals SNAP. Thus, suspending benefits by administrative inaction may look less like lawful policy change and more like mass deprivation without process, the very evil Goldberg sought to prevent.
If that interpretation holds, COULD every recipient of SNAP claim an individual constitutional violation. COULD WE SEE A FUTURE CLASS ACTION AGAINST THESE BIG INSURANCE GIANTS THAT DEPLETES THEM OF EVERY DOLLAR AND MORE THAT THEY WERE ALLEGEDLY TRYING TO FORCE CONGRESS TO HOLD OUT FOR? Hundreds of BILLIONS? After all, isn’t that kind of money loss one of the only things they understand?
2. Could Corporate Influence Trigger Liability?
Suppose evidence later shows that major insurance companies pressured lawmakers to withhold funding until their own ACA-related subsidies were preserved. Would they be exposed?
Ordinarily, private lobbying is protected by the Noerr–Pennington doctrine, which shields petitioning of government from liability. Yet the Supreme Court carved an exception in California Motor Transport v. Trucking Unlimited (1972): when petitioning is a sham—a façade for fraud, coercion, or intentional interference with lawful government functions—the protection collapses.
In plain terms, if petitioning becomes a cover for wrongdoing, immunity fails.
Combine that with Dennis v. Sparks (1980)—which allows suits against private parties who conspire with officials to deprive rights—and a disturbing possibility emerges: if insurers knowingly colluded with political actors to stall government operations and thereby suspend SNAP, they could face exposure under RICO, ADA, or Bivens-type constitutional tort theories.
The civil stakes? Tens or hundreds of billions of dollars—because each hungry household represents a potential plaintiff with a constitutional injury. Could that be the largest lawsuit in US history with a class of 42 million americans?
3. The Government’s Role: Why Won’t USDA Act?
The states now suing USDA point out that the Department possesses roughly $5 billion in SNAP contingency funds. In 2019, during a prior shutdown, those funds were used to keep benefits flowing. This time USDA says the money is “not legally available.”
Why the reversal?
A lapse plan is an internal agency document prepared under OMB Circular A-11, § 124, which requires every federal agency to explain how it will operate during a funding lapse.
It is not itself law; it’s an administrative plan—a statement of how the agency interprets the Antideficiency Act and other appropriations statutes.
USDA’s Sept 30 2025 Lapse Plan (the one the lawsuit cites) reportedly stated:
“Congressional intent is evident that the SNAP operations should continue, since the program has been provided with multi-year contingency funds that can be used for state administrative expenses to ensure that states can also continue operations during a federal government shutdown.”
That version was posted publicly on USDA’s website but, as of mid-October, was removed or replaced with a version omitting that language.
The states’ complaint (filed in the District of Massachusetts) alleges that USDA “deleted” the earlier plan and that this reversal violates the Administrative Procedure Act because it is arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law.
The USDA clearly had language that meant: We interpret Congress’s intent and past appropriations as allowing continued benefits from contingency reserves.
What changed — and when
According to Reuters (Oct 24 2025) and CBS News Philadelphia (Oct 27 2025), USDA now claims:
“The contingency fund is not legally available to cover benefits during the current shutdown,”
and that those funds are “for disaster food purchases, not for extending regular SNAP payments.”
Simultaneously, USDA removed the prior “lapse plan” PDF from its website — the same plan the 25-state lawsuit cites as Exhibit A — and replaced it with a revised version omitting the contingency-fund language.
So yes, they changed it.
3. Can they “just change it”?
Legally, they can update a lapse plan, but they cannot change statutory meaning or congressional intent by memo.
Here’s the key hierarchy:
Legal Authority
Binding Force
Example Here
Statute (law enacted by Congress)
Supreme
7 U.S.C. § 2027 authorizing the SNAP contingency reserve fund
Regulation (issued under APA rulemaking)
High
USDA’s 7 C.F.R. § 272-274 series (SNAP implementation)
OMB / Agency guidance (lapse plan, memos)
Advisory
Internal interpretation of how to apply funds in a shutdown
Thus, the statute always takes precedence.
If the contingency fund statute authorizes use for “necessary expenses of carrying out SNAP,” that authorization remains even if a lapse plan says otherwise.
Agencies can’t override Congress by guidance document. That’s precisely why the multi-state lawsuit argues USDA’s change is “arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law” under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)).
Courts have consistently held that when an agency abruptly reverses a prior interpretation without reasoned explanation or notice, the action violates the APA. See:
FCC v. Fox Television Stations, 556 U.S. 502 (2009) – agencies may change policy, but must “display awareness that it is changing position and show that the new policy is permissible under the statute.”
Encino Motorcars v. Navarro, 579 U.S. 211 (2016) – sudden reversal without “reasoned explanation” is arbitrary and capricious.
If the states prove that USDA (1) had a consistent prior interpretation allowing contingency funds, and (2) reversed course “on a whim” without new law or reasoning, the court can order the agency to reinstate the prior interpretation or compel continued SNAP payments.
Which takes precedent — old plan, new memo, or statute?
The statute always wins.
But while the court interprets the statute, it will look to prior agency practice and congressional intent as persuasive evidence. That’s why the deleted Sept 30 plan is so important—it documents the government’s own understanding before the political pressure hit.
So:
The old plan supports the states’ argument that SNAP contingency funding is authorized and expected.
The new plan weakens USDA’s position because it suggests a politically motivated flip-flop.
The statute and congressional record (which appropriated multi-year funds for SNAP) are what the court will ultimately enforce.
Bottom line
No, USDA cannot simply “change it on a whim.”
While they can issue updated internal guidance, they are still bound by statutory language and reasoned-decision requirements under the APA.
That’s why the coalition of states sued—they’re essentially saying:
“You acknowledged congressional intent to keep feeding people. You cannot erase that acknowledgment and let 42 million Americans starve by memo.”
If the contingency fund exists, why allow 42 million people to face hunger while debating paperwork?
SOMETHING STINKS TO HIGH HEAVENS! Is the refusal bureaucratic caution—or political calculation? Could executive authority, as prior presidents have used under emergencies, RELEASE those funds?
If so, why has @realdonaldtrump not issued such an order?
And the hardest question of all: Is TRUMP allowing the pain to escalate deliberately—provoking public unrest that could justify extraordinary domestic measures, MARTIAL LAW, or distract from foreign crises? Silence from those in power deepens suspicion. If people riot in the streets that would certainly give more excuses for Trump to declare martial law or deploy more National Guard or the military in American cities.
4. Scriptural Indictment: The Jezebelian Tradecraft of Control
In the Bible, Jezebel manipulated power by controlling the flow of resources and silencing prophetic voices (1 Kings 21). The prophet Micah warned of rulers “who tear the skin from My people and eat their flesh” (Micah 3:2–3)—a haunting metaphor for leaders who feed on the poor.
The Lord, through Zechariah 7:9–12, commands:
“Administer true justice; show mercy and compassion… Do not oppress the widow or the fatherless, the foreigner or the poor.”
To weaponize hunger for political leverage is the very definition of implacability—the stubborn refusal of mercy condemned in Romans 1:31. All those involved in this will burn in hell for eternity and I plead with them to repent!
Whether the architects of this shutdown sit in corporate boardrooms or government offices, the moral verdict is the same: they mock their Maker.
5. Could a Class Action Really Happen?
Legally, a nationwide class of SNAP recipients could plausibly allege:
A continuing statutory entitlement under 7 U.S.C. § 2011 et seq.;
A deprivation of property without notice or hearing;
Conspiracy or collusion by private entities seeking to influence that deprivation for profit.
RICO does not require every participant in an enterprise to know all others—it requires only that they participate in the conduct of an enterprise through a pattern of racketeering acts. If evidence later reveals coordinated coercion—financial threats, quid-pro-quo campaign contributions, or bribery intended to prolong the shutdown—those acts could satisfy RICO’s elements.
Would such a suit succeed? That depends on proof. But the possibility itself should terrify any corporation tempted to manipulate national policy at the expense of the poor.
6. The Ultimate Judge
Courts may debate statutes and immunities, but God’s Word is unambiguous:
“Because you trample on the poor and take from them levies of grain… I will not accept your offerings.” — Amos 5:11–12
“The Lord will enter into judgment with the elders of His people… The spoil of the poor is in your houses.” — Isaiah 3:14
Every executive who profits from hunger, every legislator who plays politics with bread, every lobbyist who turns the safety net into a bargaining chip—all will stand before a higher court.
All involved are literally playing with fire and a fate so terrible even their worst nightmares cannot accurately describe how awful the suffocating torture will be that awaits them after this life. REPENT!
Disclaimer
This article raises legal and moral questions; it does not constitute legal advice. Readers concerned about their rights or considering litigation should consult a qualified attorney licensed in their jurisdiction.