Federal Judge Blocks Trump Management’s Attempt to halt SNAP Benefits During Shutdown
A federal judge in Rhode Island issued a critical ruling Friday, temporarily blocking the Trump administration from cutting off supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits to approximately 42 million Americans amidst the ongoing U.S. government shutdown. The decision, delivered orally by Judge Jack McConnell, came just one day before the administration planned to cease food stamp assistance.
The legal challenge stemmed from the administration’s argument, presented by a Justice Department lawyer, that the SNAP program effectively ceased to exist due to the lack of congressionally appropriated funds resulting from the shutdown. According to the lawyer, Tyler Becker, the administration held discretionary power over whether to utilize $6 billion in previously allocated contingency funds to continue SNAP benefits. “there is no SNAP program and, as a result, the government cannot just provide SNAP benefits,” Becker stated during the hearing.
However, Judge McConnell countered this assertion, directing the administration to utilize the existing contingency funds to maintain at least a portion of the regularly distributed SNAP benefits. The judge further instructed the administration to investigate the availability of other federal funds that coudl be employed to sustain the program in the absence of a congressional funding bill.
The ruling granted a temporary restraining order to a coalition of plaintiffs who filed a lawsuit Thursday in U.S. District Court in Providence, seeking to preserve the benefits. The trump administration is widely expected to appeal the order.
“Today’s ruling is a lifeline for millions of families, seniors, and veterans who depend on SNAP to put food on the table,” the coalition of plaintiffs declared in a statement. “It reaffirms a fundamental principle: no administration can use hunger as a political weapon.” The coalition emphasized that the victory extended beyond a single program, representing core American values of fairness, compassion, and accountability.
The plaintiffs represent a diverse group, including cities, charitable organizations, faith-based nonprofits, unions, and business organizations.
Concurrently, a similar case was unfolding in Boston. Minutes after McConnell’s ruling, Judge Indira Talwani, presiding over a separate but related lawsuit, indicated that plaintiffs in her case were likely to succeed in their claim that the administration’s suspension of SNAP benefits was unlawful. While still considering a request for a temporary restraining order,Talwani ordered the administration to report by Monday on its plans to authorize either reduced or full SNAP benefits for November,outlining a timeline for utilizing contingency funds or additional available resources.
This legal battle underscores the high stakes of the ongoing government shutdown and its potential impact on vulnerable populations. The future of SNAP benefits remains uncertain as the administration weighs its options and prepares for a potential appeal.
why did this happen? The Trump administration attempted to halt SNAP benefits, arguing the program lacked funding due to the government shutdown. Who was involved? A coalition of cities, charities, and organizations sued the administration, and Judges Jack McConnell and Indira Talwani issued rulings in their favor. What was the outcome? Judges issued temporary restraining orders blocking the administration from cutting off SNAP benefits, directing them to utilize existing funds. How did it end? The administration is expected to appeal the rulings, leaving the future of SNAP benefits uncertain.
