Alameda County committee hears timeline for federal continuing resolution and uncertainty over SNAP guidance

The Alameda County Personnel Administration and Legislation Committee heard an update Monday on federal budget negotiations and legal uncertainty over SNAP/CalFresh benefits, including a pending temporary restraining order that paused recent USDA guidance.

County staff told supervisors that the U.S. Senate had voted to proceed on a continuing resolution (CR) and that the measure — which staff said "includes a continuing resolution through January 30" — could see a Senate vote that evening and a House vote the following Wednesday, raising the possibility that federal funding and services could be restored before the holidays.

Why it matters: The CR’s inclusion of a three-bill minibus covering agriculture, military construction and veterans affairs means nutrition programs such as SNAP and WIC would not be disrupted if the CR is enacted; however, county staff and outside consultants warned that recent federal guidance and ongoing litigation have created operational and legal uncertainty for states that already distributed full CalFresh benefits.

Amy Costa of Full Moon Strategies, a consultant addressing state-side developments during the meeting, said California Attorney General Rob Bonta led a coalition of 23 attorneys general in asking the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts for a temporary restraining order to pause USDA’s Nov. 8 guidance. "The coalition announced that the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted its request to pause the USDA's November 8 guidance document," Costa said, and the court set a remote hearing for later that day.

Costa summarized the USDA guidance as directing states not to transmit full SNAP benefits and to continue processing only partial assistance (the 35% payment previously discussed). She warned states that had already issued full benefits — as California did over the weekend — were being told to "undo any steps taken to issue full benefits" and could face federal enforcement actions, including cancellation of federal administrative-cost sharing or liability for overissuances.

Supervisor Fortunato Basque asked whether replenished EBT cards (CalFresh) had been funded from state or federal sources. Costa said there was a period when the state believed full benefits were authorized by flows from the federal side, and she identified an $80,000,000 allocation in the state budget intended to support food banks. Committee members noted apparent tensions in the record: the chair and a supervisor said none of the $80 million had been used yet, while Costa said the governor had distributed funds to food banks the prior week. The meeting record reflects that both claims were made and that administrative details remain unsettled.

County presenters cautioned that even if Congress passes and the president signs a funding measure quickly, some services and systems (for example, air-transport operations and benefit-distribution processes) would not return to normal instantaneously.

No formal vote or action items were taken by the committee on the matter during the meeting. Committee members invited public comment on the federal update and heard none in person; several online participants identified themselves, including Valerie Arkin of Supervisor Miley’s office and representatives from Alameda County Community Food Bank and Alameda County Health.

The committee adjourned after the updates.