Listen to the article
The Trump administration on Friday appealed a federal judge’s order requiring full funding of the nation’s food assistance program, escalating a legal battle that could affect millions of low-income Americans. Justice Department lawyers asked the First Circuit Court of Appeals to temporarily block an injunction issued just one day earlier that mandated the release of $4 billion for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).
U.S. District Judge John McConnell had given the Department of Agriculture less than 24 hours to allocate the funds necessary to fully support SNAP through November. His ruling came after the administration had proposed funding just 65% of the program’s benefits.
“It’s likely that SNAP recipients are hungry as we sit here,” McConnell remarked before issuing his order on Thursday, highlighting the urgency of maintaining food aid that serves approximately 42 million Americans nationwide.
The legal wrangling represents an unprecedented crisis for the six-decade-old food assistance program, which has never before faced a lapse in funding. The situation has created anxiety among beneficiaries who rely on SNAP benefits to feed their families, particularly as the holiday season approaches.
In their appeal, Trump administration lawyers argued that the district court had overstepped its authority, writing that the order “makes a mockery of the separation of powers.” The Justice Department filing dismissed the directive as an “unprecedented injunction” that essentially asks the USDA to find “$4 billion in the metaphorical couch cushions.”
“This is a crisis, to be sure, but it is a crisis occasioned by congressional failure, and that can only be solved by congressional action,” the administration’s lawyers wrote, attempting to shift responsibility to lawmakers.
The legal dispute comes amid an ongoing government funding impasse. Judge McConnell criticized the administration for what he described as a failure to comply with his original order from last week, which required the USDA to maintain SNAP benefits before funding was scheduled to expire on November 1. He also noted that officials had not addressed distribution problems that could delay payments in some states for weeks or even months.
SNAP participation rates vary significantly by region, with USDA data showing the highest usage in New Mexico, Oregon, and Louisiana. The program represents one of the country’s most substantial safety net initiatives, providing monthly benefits that help low-income households purchase food at authorized retailers.
Anti-hunger advocates have expressed alarm about the potential consequences of reduced benefits, particularly for vulnerable populations including children, elderly individuals, and people with disabilities who make up significant portions of SNAP recipients.
The legal battle highlights broader tensions between judicial intervention and executive authority during funding disputes. While the Trump administration argues that only Congress can appropriate the necessary funds, critics contend that existing laws require the administration to utilize available contingency funds to maintain essential services like food assistance.
The First Circuit Court of Appeals must now decide whether to grant the temporary stay requested by the Justice Department, potentially leaving millions of Americans in limbo regarding their food assistance benefits. The court has not indicated when it might rule on the administration’s request.
If SNAP benefits are reduced or delayed, food banks and other charitable organizations across the country could face overwhelming demand at a time when many are already stretched thin by economic pressures and increased need in their communities.
The case represents one of several legal challenges the administration faces regarding the implementation of social safety net programs during the current funding dispute, with courts in multiple jurisdictions weighing similar questions about executive responsibility during budgetary standoffs.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
11 Comments
The administration’s appeal is a worrying escalation in this legal dispute. SNAP is a vital part of the social safety net, and any disruption to its funding could have severe consequences for millions of Americans. I’m curious to see how the courts will rule and whether they will protect the integrity of this essential program.
Absolutely. The stakes here are incredibly high, and the courts must act swiftly to maintain the full scope of SNAP benefits. Vulnerable families cannot afford any disruption to this critical food assistance program.
This case highlights the ongoing tensions between the executive and judicial branches. While the administration may have concerns about the judge’s order, undermining the separation of powers is a dangerous precedent. The courts must be able to fulfill their oversight role, especially when critical social programs are at stake.
The Trump administration’s appeal of the judge’s order to fully fund SNAP is concerning. Food assistance is a vital social safety net, and any disruption to this program could have devastating impacts on low-income families. I hope the courts uphold the judge’s decision to maintain full SNAP benefits.
Agreed. The administration’s actions here seem to prioritize political posturing over the wellbeing of vulnerable citizens. The courts must act swiftly to protect this essential program.
The SNAP program is a crucial lifeline for millions of Americans struggling with food insecurity. Any disruption to its funding could have devastating consequences. I hope the courts recognize the gravity of this situation and rule in favor of maintaining the full scope of SNAP benefits.
Absolutely. SNAP is one of the most effective federal anti-poverty programs we have. Cutting funding or creating uncertainty around its future would be a cruel blow to vulnerable families.
This is a concerning development in the ongoing battle over SNAP. The administration’s appeal seems to be more about political posturing than protecting the program’s integrity. I hope the courts will uphold the judge’s order and ensure that SNAP continues to serve those in need without interruption.
This case raises important questions about the balance of power between the executive and judicial branches. While the administration may have concerns, undermining the courts’ ability to provide oversight could set a dangerous precedent. I hope the legal system will uphold the judge’s decision and protect the SNAP program for those who rely on it.
This is an important case regarding the SNAP food assistance program. The separation of powers and the role of the judiciary in overseeing the executive branch’s actions are critical issues here. I’m curious to see how this legal battle unfolds and what the broader implications may be.
Yes, the administration’s appeal is an aggressive move that could have significant consequences for millions of vulnerable Americans who rely on SNAP benefits. It will be interesting to see how the courts rule on this.