Federal Judge Orders Full SNAP Funding Amidst government Shutdown Battle
A federal judge in Rhode Island has mandated the Trump management to fully fund Supplemental nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits for November,a decision swiftly appealed by the administration. The ruling, delivered by U.S. District Judge John J. McConnell jr., requires the administration to make the payments by Friday, though the roughly 42 million Americans – approximately one in eight, wiht a majority living in poverty – are unlikely to see the funds on their grocery debit cards immediately.
The legal challenge originated from cities and nonprofits who argued the administration was onyl prepared to cover 65% of the maximum benefit amount, potentially leaving some recipients without any assistance this month. “The defendants failed to consider the practical consequences associated with this decision to only partially fund SNAP,” Judge McConnell stated during a hearing. “They knew that there would be a long delay in paying partial SNAP payments and failed to consider the harms individuals who rely on those benefits would suffer.”
This order builds upon a previous ruling from last week, where two judges resolute the administration could not entirely halt November’s benefits due to the ongoing federal shutdown.
Immediately following the rulings, the Trump administration’s legal team filed a motion to appeal both decisions, contesting the order to utilize emergency reserves to fund the food program throughout November.
Vice President JD Vance characterized the ruling as “absurd,” stating, “What we’d like to do is for the Democrats to open up the government of course, then we can fund SNAP.” He added that during a shutdown, a federal court should not dictate how the president manages the situation.
The administration initially opted for partial payments this week. Last month, officials indicated they would suspend SNAP payments for November if the government shutdown persisted. A coalition of cities and nonprofits initiated a lawsuit in Rhode Island, while Democratic state officials pursued a similar case in Massachusetts. Both courts instructed the government to draw from an emergency reserve fund exceeding $4.6 billion to cover November’s SNAP benefits, while allowing versatility to access additional funds to reach the full monthly cost, estimated between $8.5 billion and $9 billion. Though, the administration on Monday declined to utilize further funds, asserting that Congress should appropriate the necessary resources and that the existing reserves were needed for other child hunger programs.
This partial funding approach drew sharp criticism from Judge McConnell. “Without SNAP funding for the month of November, 16 million children are immediately at risk of going hungry,” he emphasized. “This should never happen in America. In fact, it’s likely that SNAP recipients are hungry as we sit here.” Tyler Becker, representing the government, argued the administration had complied with the court’s order by issuing partial payments, attributing the shortfall to Congress’s failure to pass funding legislation amid the shutdown.
Kristin bateman, attorney for the coalition of cities and nonprofits, countered that the administration’s motivations extended beyond budgetary concerns. “What defendants are realy trying to do is to leverage people’s hunger to gain partisan political advantage in the shutdown fight,” she told the court. Judge McConnell referenced last week’s order, which stipulated payments be made “expeditiously” and “efficiently” by Wednesday, noting that no action was taken to facilitate a swift resolution.
The administration initially indicated it could take weeks or even months for some states to adjust systems and load the debit cards, initially proposing to fund 50% of maximum benefits. The following day, a statement from Trump suggested benefits might be withheld entirely unless Congress reopened the government.A press secretary later clarified that partial benefits would be paid for November, but future payments remained at risk if the shutdown continued. On Wednesday evening, the administration recalculated, informing states that 65% of maximum benefits could be covered. This adjustment would disproportionately effect those receiving less than the maximum benefit, with some families potentially receiving as little as $16.
Carmel Scaife, a Milwaukee resident who relies on SNAP after being injured in a car accident, explained that her usual $130 monthly benefit is insufficient to cover a month’s worth of groceries. Any reduction, she stated, would force her to draw from her Social Security income to afford food. “That’ll take away from the bills that I pay,” Scaife said, “But that’s the only way I can survive.”
The next legal steps remain uncertain. While such orders are typically not subject to appeal, the Trump administration has previously challenged similar rulings.Democracy Forward, an institution involved in the legal challenge, signaled its willingness to continue the fight. “We shouldn’t have to force the President to care for his citizens,” said Skye Perryman,President and CEO of Democracy Forward,”but we will do whatever is necessary to protect people and communities.” It typically takes a week or more for SNAP benefits to be loaded onto debit cards after states initiate the process.
