Lead: The Trump administration on Nov. 7, 2025 asked the 1st Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for an emergency stay after a federal judge ordered full Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) payments for November. The request would let the government pay a partial amount — up to 65% — from an emergency contingency fund rather than using additional sources identified by the court. The order affects roughly 42 million Americans who receive monthly SNAP benefits and was issued by U.S. District Judge Jack McConnell in Rhode Island. Plaintiffs and the judge say a full payment is urgently needed to avoid hunger and strain on food banks.
Key takeaways
- The administration asked the 1st Circuit to put on hold a district court order requiring full November SNAP payments to 42 million recipients by Friday, Nov. 7, 2025.
- The government proposed paying 65% of November benefits from a congressional contingency fund, up from an earlier proposal to pay 50%.
- Judge Jack McConnell ordered the use of Section 32 funds in addition to the $4.65 billion contingency money already allocated, a step the administration had opposed.
- Plaintiffs include cities, charitable and faith-based nonprofits, unions, and business groups that sued to compel full benefits during the federal shutdown that began Oct. 1, 2025.
- The appeals court set a noon ET deadline for plaintiffs to respond to the administration’s emergency motion on the morning of Nov. 7.
- The administration had previously said SNAP payments could cease in November absent new appropriations from Congress.
Background
Federal funding lapsed on Oct. 1, 2025, when Congress failed to pass a continuing resolution to temporarily finance parts of the government, triggering a partial shutdown. SNAP, the nation’s largest domestic nutrition program, serves roughly 42 million people each month through EBT-issued benefits. Historically, some previous administrations continued certain benefit disbursements during shutdowns by drawing on available funds or contingency accounts; the legal and policy choices in each shutdown have varied.
A coalition of municipal governments, food banks, faith groups, unions and business organizations filed suit in U.S. District Court in Rhode Island seeking an order to compel full SNAP payments for November. On Oct. 31, Judge McConnell directed the administration to pay at least partial benefits from the contingency fund immediately and to assess whether other funds could be tapped to make recipients whole. The administration initially told the court it would use contingency funds to cover 50% of benefits, then revised that number to 65% after reviewing available balances.
Main event
On Nov. 6, Judge McConnell rejected the administration’s partial-payment approach and ordered full funding for November SNAP benefits. In his written order he directed officials to use Section 32 funds alongside the $4.65 billion contingency money the administration had already earmarked. The administration had previously said it would not deploy Section 32 funds for SNAP, arguing statutory limits and budgetary constraints.
The administration then filed an emergency motion with the 1st Circuit on Nov. 7 asking the appeals court to stay McConnell’s order while it pursues review. In its filing the government reiterated that, absent congressional appropriations, it may only disburse benefits from limited contingency balances and asked the court to allow the 65% payment plan to proceed immediately.
The 1st Circuit set an accelerated timetable, instructing the plaintiffs to respond by noon ET the same day the motion was submitted. If the appeals court grants the emergency stay, the administration would avoid an immediate requirement to tap Section 32 funds or other sources ordered by the district court, at least temporarily.
Analysis & implications
Legal: The dispute centers on what funding mechanisms the executive branch may lawfully use during a lapse in appropriations. Section 32 funds are an existing agricultural account Congress has used for nutrition and market programs, but use for SNAP has been contested. A stay from the appeals court would slow judicial enforcement and could set a precedent about executive flexibility in funding mandatory benefit programs during shutdowns.
Operational: A partial payment in November would create immediate hardship for recipients who rely on SNAP for basic groceries. Food banks and charitable providers, already strained, could face a surge in demand. The judge’s finding that ‘‘people will go hungry’’ if benefits are not made whole underscores the scale of potential human impact.
Fiscal and political: Forcing use of Section 32 or other funds may shift budgetary balances and prompt political backlash from lawmakers on both sides. The administration’s choice to seek judicial relief highlights the broader negotiation dynamic: absent a congressional deal, the executive must weigh legal risk, program integrity, and humanitarian consequences. The case could influence how future shutdowns are managed and which funds are deemed acceptable for emergency use.
Comparison & data
| Item | Value / Note |
|---|---|
| Number of SNAP recipients affected | 42,000,000 people |
| Contingency fund previously planned | $4.65 billion (allocated) |
| Administration’s initial partial proposal | 50% of November benefits |
| Administration’s revised proposal | 65% of November benefits |
| Judge’s directive | Full November payments using contingency + Section 32 |
The table summarizes the principal numeric points driving the legal disagreement. The most consequential gap is between a court-ordered full payment and the administration’s assertion that only a portion of benefits can be covered from the contingency balance without using other accounts.
Reactions & quotes
Judicial reaction and plaintiffs: The district judge framed the issue as an urgency-of-life problem, stressing consequences for beneficiaries and community aid organizations.
‘People have gone without for too long.’
Judge Jack McConnell, U.S. District Court (Rhode Island)
‘The evidence shows that people will go hungry, food pantries will be overburdened, and needless suffering will occur’ if SNAP is not fully funded.
Judge Jack McConnell, written order
Administration position: Government lawyers told the court they need flexibility to manage limited funds and asked the appeals court to permit payment from contingency money at a reduced level while legal review continues. Plaintiffs said the partial proposals were insufficient and asked for enforcement of full funding to prevent immediate harm.
Unconfirmed
- Whether the 1st Circuit will grant an emergency stay is unresolved and could change on an expedited schedule.
- The precise remaining balance in the contingency fund beyond the $4.65 billion already identified has not been publicly verified by an independent accounting in court filings.
- The administration’s legal rationale for excluding Section 32 funds from SNAP spending was described in filings but has not been uniformly tested in appellate precedent.
Bottom line
The near-term outcome hinges on the 1st Circuit’s decision on the administration’s emergency motion; a stay would delay enforcement of the district court’s order requiring full November SNAP payments. Regardless of the appeals court’s ruling, the case spotlights how a funding lapse can cascade into legal, humanitarian and political conflicts around core safety-net programs.
For millions of households, the practical difference between a full monthly benefit and a partial payment can be the difference between adequate meals and food insecurity. Policymakers in Congress and executive officials face urgent pressure to resolve appropriations gaps or identify lawful, agreed-upon mechanisms to ensure uninterrupted benefits in future shutdowns.