Lead
A federal appeals panel in Boston on Sunday again refused the Trump administration’s emergency request to block a Rhode Island judge’s order that would require full November SNAP payments to roughly 42 million Americans amid the federal shutdown. The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued the denial late Sunday, but the district-court order remains paused by a separate Supreme Court ruling until at least Tuesday night, giving the administration time to seek another stay from the high court. The dispute centers on whether the government must tap a $4.6 billion contingency pot and other funds to cover the roughly $8 billion monthly SNAP bill. The timing comes as the Senate advanced a bipartisan step that could reopen the government and fund SNAP through next September.
Key Takeaways
- The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals denied the administration’s emergency request late Sunday to block a Rhode Island judge’s order for full November SNAP benefits to 42 million people.
- Despite the panel’s denial, a prior Supreme Court pause keeps the district-court order from taking effect until at least Tuesday night as the administration considers further relief.
- Judge Jack McConnell ordered the government to use a contingency fund and Section 32 monies to make up shortfalls after the administration planned a partial, 65% payment.
- The administration declined to use the remaining $4.6 billion contingency reserve and had told the court it would not tap Section 32 funds before the order requiring them to do so.
- SNAP spending runs about $8 billion per month; plaintiffs argued the administration’s delay left beneficiaries without payments into November.
- The USDA warned some states that issued full benefits they could face financial penalties if they do not reverse payments issued since Friday.
- The 1st Circuit panel included a written critique that the government had been unprepared and “sat on its hands” as the problem developed.
Background
The friction traces to the government shutdown that began Oct. 1, when the Trump administration said on Oct. 24 it would not disburse November SNAP benefits because Congress had not appropriated funds beyond the shutdown start. That departure from prior practice—previous administrations typically paid SNAP in full during shutdowns—prompted immediate legal and political pushback. SNAP serves roughly 42 million low-income Americans each month and costs about $8 billion monthly, creating urgent pressures when payments are delayed.
A coalition of plaintiffs—nonprofits, local governments, a union and a food retailer—filed suit in U.S. District Court in Rhode Island seeking an order compelling the Department of Agriculture to use a designated contingency fund and other available receipts to cover benefits. Judge Jack McConnell first ordered prompt partial payments by tapping the contingency fund, then on Oct. 31 directed the administration to pay full November benefits and to use Section 32 funds to make up the difference between a planned 65% payout and full benefits.
Main Event
After McConnell’s order, the administration sought emergency relief from the 1st Circuit to stay the judge’s directive. On Friday the appeals court denied an initial emergency stay but said it would consider a stay pending appeal. Late Sunday a three-judge 1st Circuit panel again denied the administration’s renewed emergency request to block the district-court order. The panel emphasized the government’s preparedness and the equities weighing in favor of beneficiaries who had gone without payments.
Separately, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson of the U.S. Supreme Court, acting on an administration request, temporarily paused McConnell’s order for 48 hours on Friday night and instructed the 1st Circuit to expedite consideration of the stay request. That Supreme Court pause remains in effect through at least Tuesday night, permitting the administration time to return to the high court for a further stay while the appeals process proceeds.
The USDA also issued a warning to states that had already issued full SNAP benefits since Friday, threatening financial penalties and demanding that those states undo the payments if they did not comply. Senate negotiators meanwhile advanced the first procedural step of a bipartisan bill that could reopen the government and fully fund SNAP through September of the following year, but final passage remained uncertain at the time of the appeals ruling.
Analysis & Implications
The appeals panel’s refusal to grant an emergency stay underscores judicial concern about the immediate harms to beneficiaries and the administration’s decision-making in the run-up to the shutdown. Courts typically balance the likelihood of success on appeal against irreparable harm; here judges focused heavily on the practical consequences for millions going without food assistance. By highlighting that the government had months to plan but did not, the 1st Circuit signaled skepticism about last-minute administration justifications.
Practically, the Supreme Court pause means millions remain in limbo: states and benefit providers cannot safely treat the district order as enforceable until the pause expires or is lifted. If the high court ultimately denies a longer stay, the administration could be forced to disburse full November benefits retroactively and seek reimbursement or accounting afterward, a politically fraught and administratively complex outcome.
Economically, tapping the contingency fund and Section 32 monies shifts budget pressures across USDA accounts and to future appropriations. The remaining $4.6 billion contingency reserve covers only a portion of potential multi-month shortfalls, so a longer shutdown or repeated legal losses could force broader program adjustments or accelerate congressional pressure to resolve appropriations. Politically, the episode sharpens scrutiny of executive shutdown decisions and could influence voter perceptions ahead of upcoming campaigns.
Comparison & Data
| Item | Amount | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Monthly SNAP cost | $8 billion | Approximate nationwide outlay |
| Remaining contingency fund | $4.6 billion | Designated to backstop SNAP shortfalls |
| Estimated beneficiaries affected | 42 million | Recipients nationwide for November cycle |
The table shows that the contingency fund covers roughly half a typical month of SNAP spending; if the government must restore full payments for November, contingency and Section 32 resources become central to immediate compliance. Longer-term fixes require congressional appropriations, which the Senate was negotiating at the time of these rulings.
Reactions & Quotes
“This is a problem that could have been avoided,”
Judge Julie Rikelman, 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
The panel majority invoked the district court’s finding that the administration had months to prepare and had failed to mount an adequate plan, strengthening the equities for beneficiaries.
“States that have issued full benefits must undo those payments or face financial consequences,”
U.S. Department of Agriculture (statement)
The USDA’s warning pressed states to reverse post-Friday payments, creating a potential clash between state efforts to protect residents and federal enforcement actions.
“Use Section 32 funds to make up the difference between the 65% payment plan and full benefits,”
Judge Jack McConnell, U.S. District Court for Rhode Island
McConnell ordered the government to identify and deploy additional program funds, rejecting the administration’s plan for partial payments as insufficient to avert harm.
Unconfirmed
- Whether the Supreme Court will extend the temporary pause beyond Tuesday night remains uncertain; the administration has time to ask for a longer stay.
- It is not yet confirmed whether the threatened USDA penalties will be enforced against states that issued full benefits; enforcement actions may be delayed or negotiated.
- The final fate of the Senate’s bipartisan procedural step—and whether it will pass final votes to reopen government and fund SNAP through September—was unresolved at the time of these rulings.
Bottom Line
The 1st Circuit’s refusal to grant an emergency stay reflects judicial reluctance to allow millions of SNAP recipients to remain unpaid when judicial findings pointed to avoidable administrative inaction. However, the Supreme Court’s temporary pause keeps the dispute unsettled and prolongs uncertainty for beneficiaries, states and food assistance providers. Immediate practical outcomes depend on whether the high court extends its pause or the administration secures a longer stay; absent that, the administration could be ordered to restore full benefits and use contingency and Section 32 funds to do so.
For policymakers, the episode underscores the limits of executive discretion during appropriations gaps and the political costs of deviating from prior shutdown practices. For households relying on SNAP, the urgent risk is short-term disruption in food assistance; for Congress, the pressure to resolve funding and clarify statutory authorities is likely to intensify as the practical consequences of the shutdown continue to accumulate.
Sources
- CNBC (news media)