judge-orders-trump-fund-snap

Judge Orders Trump Administration to Fully Fund SNAP Benefits This Month

by

— A federal judge in Rhode Island ordered the Trump administration on Thursday to restore full Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program payments this month for roughly 42 million low-income Americans, after finding the government had delayed aid during the ongoing shutdown. The decision, handed down by Judge John J. McConnell Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island, directed the administration to use available Department of Agriculture reserves to make full monthly disbursements to states by Friday. The Justice Department immediately announced plans to appeal, leaving the timing and completeness of payments uncertain for millions who rely on food stamps. Advocates, state officials and several courts pressed for immediate relief amid warnings that delayed benefits would deepen financial hardship for families.

Key Takeaways

  • Judge John J. McConnell Jr. ordered full funding of SNAP benefits for about 42 million recipients, roughly one in eight Americans.
  • The order was issued on Nov. 6, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island; a written order was expected soon.
  • The Justice Department said it would appeal the ruling, creating uncertainty about whether states will receive payments on the judge’s timetable.
  • The Agriculture Department had sufficient reserves, including a second reserve of tens of billions of dollars, that courts were asked to unlock for SNAP.
  • Roughly two dozen states and multiple nonprofit and municipal plaintiffs sued to force continued SNAP funding during the sixth week of the federal shutdown.
  • The administration initially approved only partial payments and issued new, complex rules that delayed state processing and risked some families receiving no benefits in November.
  • Local officials and advocates argued the delays amounted to leveraging hunger for political advantage; the administration denied intentional misconduct and blamed lack of congressional appropriations.

Background

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, commonly known as SNAP or food stamps, provides monthly aid that helps about 42 million Americans buy groceries. SNAP has long been administered by states under federal rules, with the U.S. Department of Agriculture supplying funds and guidance. Historically, courts have required federal agencies to continue core benefit programs during funding interruptions when reserves and statutory authorities permit payment. The current clash arose amid a federal shutdown that had reached its sixth week by early November 2025, during which many agencies reduced or altered operations.

In recent weeks the Agriculture Department tapped an emergency reserve to sustain another nutrition program and acknowledged the existence of a second, larger reserve that could cover SNAP payments. Plaintiffs including cities, religious organizations and nonprofits sued after the administration signaled it would halt or substantially reduce SNAP funding while appropriations were unresolved. The litigation expanded as about two dozen states filed similar suits, arguing that abrupt cuts or complicated partial-payment rules would produce needless delays and harm households that rely on predictable monthly support.

Main Event

At a brief but charged hearing on Nov. 6, Judge McConnell criticized the administration for not complying with his earlier exhortation to restart SNAP payments promptly. He concluded that available Agriculture Department funds could cover full benefits and that the agency’s partial payment approach and newly imposed calculation rules had needlessly complicated distribution. The judge ordered the government to direct funds to states so they could issue standard monthly benefits to recipients without additional procedural hurdles.

Immediately after the ruling, the Justice Department signaled an intent to appeal, telling the court it believed it had acted within legal constraints and that Congress, not the executive branch, controls appropriations. At times during the hearing a government lawyer framed the issue as stemming from Congress not having enacted funding, while plaintiffs’ lawyers argued that existing statutory authorities and agency reserves allowed immediate full payment. The dispute exposed sharp legal and political fault lines over who bears responsibility for ensuring benefits during a lapse in appropriations.

Although the Agriculture Department later acknowledged that its earlier guidance had created confusion and said it would revise the rules, many state administrators warned that the changes had already slowed processing. Some states faced scenarios where families could receive reduced or no payments this month because of the way partial benefits were calculated. Plaintiffs urged the court to require the transfer of reserve funds that had been used in other nutrition contexts earlier in the shutdown, arguing that a practical remedy existed and should be implemented without delay.

Analysis & Implications

The judge’s order underscores a practical and legal tension that appears when appropriations lapse: courts can compel agencies to use existing authorities and reserves to continue essential benefits even absent new congressional funding. If the appeals court allows the injunction to stand, states could restore predictable benefits quickly, averting near-term hunger for tens of millions. If the appeal succeeds in pausing the lower court order, low-income households may face weeks of uncertainty about whether they will receive full support for groceries.

Politically, the dispute places pressure on both the White House and congressional leaders. Plaintiffs characterized the delay as an attempt to extract political concessions, while administration officials have emphasized constitutional and budgetary limits. Regardless of motive, the practical effect on households is immediate: many families budget tightly, and a late or partial SNAP payment can force impossible choices between food, rent and medicine.

Economically, disruptions to SNAP reverberate beyond recipients. SNAP benefits are quickly spent and support local retailers and food supply chains; abrupt reductions reduce consumer demand, with disproportionate effects in low-income communities. From a governance perspective, the episode could prompt new litigation and congressional interest in clarifying agency authority to use reserves during funding gaps, or in creating statutory safeguards that prevent benefit interruptions in future shutdowns.

Comparison & Data

Metric Value
SNAP recipients About 42 million
Share of US population Roughly 1 in 8
States suing About 24 (roughly two dozen)
Length of shutdown at time of ruling Six weeks
Available second reserve cited Tens of billions of dollars

The table summarizes the immediate scale: millions are directly affected and many state governments have joined litigation to reduce the risk of disruption. Courts pointed to sizable agency reserves as a feasible source to cover monthly disbursements, a fact central to the judge’s remedial order. Even where funding exists on paper, administrative rules and state processing timelines determine how quickly households actually receive cash to buy food.

Reactions & Quotes

Plaintiffs, state officials and advocacy groups framed the ruling as a necessary intervention to protect vulnerable families. Officials for the government defended their legal posture and emphasized limits imposed by the appropriations process.

This should never happen in America; reliable aid must not become a bargaining chip.

Judge John J. McConnell Jr., U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island

Commentary from legal advocates highlighted the human stakes.

No one should have to force the president to care for his citizens, but we will do whatever is necessary to protect people and communities.

Skye Perryman, Democracy Forward (plaintiff counsel)

State officials emphasized the relief the order could bring even as they noted the ongoing appeal.

A judge just stopped the federal government from starving millions of Americans; people will get the food they need.

Letitia James, New York Attorney General (plaintiff)

The Justice Department argued its legal position at the hearing, citing limits on spending absent congressional appropriation and announcing an appeal afterward.

The government maintains it has acted within legal constraints given the lack of new appropriations.

Justice Department counsel (court statement)

Unconfirmed

  • Whether senior White House officials expressly ordered SNAP delays for political leverage remains legally and factually contested and is not established in the record before the court.
  • The precise timetable for when individual households will receive full November benefits remains unclear while the Justice Department pursues an appeal.
  • The full extent of harm to recipients from the partial-payment rules has been reported by state officials but has not yet been comprehensively quantified at the national level.

Bottom Line

The Rhode Island ruling is a significant but potentially temporary legal victory for recipients and advocates seeking uninterrupted SNAP payments. It underscores that courts can and will examine agency choices about using available reserves to sustain essential benefits during funding lapses, but the practical outcome depends on how quickly states receive funds and whether appellate courts uphold the order.

For recipients, the immediate concern is receipt of benefits this month; for policymakers, the episode highlights the policy and political vulnerabilities created by shutdowns. Expect further litigation and possible congressional responses aimed at preventing similar disruptions in future funding disputes.

Sources

Leave a Comment