Lead
The Trump administration asked the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday to issue an emergency stay by 4 p.m. ET to block a federal judge’s order requiring full payment of November Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits. The order, issued Thursday by U.S. District Judge John J. McConnell Jr., directed the administration to use emergency authorities to cover November SNAP, a payment scheduled for Nov. 1. The administration contends certain Section 32 funds — specifically a $4 billion pool at issue — must be preserved to run WIC programs. Local governments and nonprofits that sued to compel full SNAP funding urged the appeals court to leave the district court order intact.
Key takeaways
- The administration filed for an emergency stay with the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, asking for a ruling by 4 p.m. ET Friday.
- The dispute centers on whether the government can be compelled to use roughly $4 billion from Section 32 of the Agricultural Adjustment Act Amendment of 1935 to fund November SNAP benefits.
- The administration argues Section 32 funds must be reserved for WIC, which it says requires about $3 billion per month to operate.
- Plaintiffs contend $23 billion in remaining funds can cover both WIC and SNAP; SNAP typically needs about $8.5 billion in a month.
- Judge John J. McConnell Jr. denied the administration’s stay request at the district level and sharply criticized the idea of withholding benefits further.
- The government warned that forcing a transfer could deplete other safety-net programs and create fiscal conflicts across mandatory spending.
Background
The standoff stems from a lapse in appropriations during an ongoing federal government shutdown, which has complicated routine disbursements for nutrition and other domestic programs. SNAP, the nation’s largest food assistance program, issues monthly benefits to millions of households; the November payments were scheduled to process on Nov. 1. Section 32 authority, created as part of a 1935 agricultural law, gives the executive branch certain commodity and price-support resources that the administration says can be used to backstop nutrition programs in emergencies.
Advocates, including a coalition of local governments and nonprofits, filed suit after partial SNAP payments were announced, arguing the administration must use available emergency funds to guarantee full benefits. The plaintiffs say the government’s partial payments would impose immediate hardship on low-income families and that remaining federal balances — cited by plaintiffs at $23 billion — are sufficient to fund both SNAP and WIC in the near term. The case has become an early judicial test of how courts may police executive choices about reallocating statutory emergency funds during a funding lapse.
Main event
At a Thursday hearing, Judge McConnell ordered the administration to fully fund November SNAP benefits by Friday, saying delays were causing harm and that beneficiaries had already waited too long. The government responded by committing only to partial SNAP payments, asserting it needs to preserve Section 32 resources for the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC). The administration’s filing to the appeals court framed the issue as a choice between safety-net programs, arguing that shifting Section 32 money from WIC to SNAP would be an imprudent transfer.
In its brief, the administration warned that allowing plaintiffs to compel transfers whenever they litigate would create a proliferation of conflicting injunctions that could drain the federal fisc. The filing used a metaphor — paraphrased by counsel in the district filing — that transferring those funds could “starve Peter to feed Paul,” a characterization aimed at underscoring competing statutory priorities. Plaintiffs responded on Friday by challenging the administration’s claim of irreparable harm and stressing that available balances exceed the combined near-term needs of WIC and SNAP.
Judge McConnell, who denied the government’s request to stay his order at the district level, publicly rebuked the president for comments suggesting he might defy a court order. The judge told the administration that withholding benefits for another day was unacceptable, emphasizing the immediate harm to recipients if payments are delayed. The administration maintains its position that appropriations have lapsed and that Congress must resolve the underlying funding gap.
Analysis & implications
Legally, the dispute tests the extent to which a court can require an executive agency to move funds across statutory lines in the face of competing programmatic obligations. If the appeals court enforces the district court’s order, it would set a notable precedent that courts may require specific transfers to prevent imminent public harm during funding lapses. Conversely, a stay would reinforce executive discretion over emergency resource allocation in the absence of congressional appropriations.
Practically, the immediate consequence is material for millions of low-income households that rely on SNAP for monthly groceries. Delayed or partial payments could force families to reduce food consumption, increase borrowing, or rely on emergency food providers. WIC beneficiaries — pregnant people, infants and young children — also face risks if funds that sustain formula and nutrition services are drawn down without clear replenishment plans.
Politically, the case amplifies pressure on Congress to resolve the funding impasse. Both parties face public scrutiny: lawmakers are being urged to act to prevent cuts to basic nutrition programs, while the administration faces judicial pushback for its prioritization decisions. The fiscal argument that shifting funds would create a cascade of injunctions speaks to a broader concern about managing mandatory spending when appropriations are uncertain.
Comparison & data
| Program | Typical monthly need | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| SNAP | ~$8.5 billion | Monthly nationwide benefit disbursement for enrolled households |
| WIC | $3 billion per month | Nutrition services for women, infants and children |
| Section 32 funds at issue | $4 billion (transfer contested) | Authority under the Agricultural Adjustment Act Amendment of 1935 |
| Remaining cited balances | $23 billion | Plaintiffs assert this sum can cover shortfalls |
The table lays out the core numbers driving the litigation: plaintiffs point to a $23 billion remaining balance they say is sufficient to meet both WIC and SNAP needs, while the administration highlights $4 billion in Section 32 funds it seeks to reserve. Those sums frame the immediate operational choices agencies must make while appropriations are unresolved.
Reactions & quotes
Plaintiff groups and local officials framed the dispute as a question of urgent public need, warning that partial payments would inflict immediate hardship on vulnerable households.
The government’s claim of irreparable harm is unsupported, and failing to cover SNAP will cause grave harm to millions of Americans.
Coalition of local governments and nonprofits (plaintiffs)
In contrast, the administration emphasized fiscal and statutory constraints, arguing that transfers could destabilize other statutorily supported programs.
If courts could force agencies to transfer funds from other programs whenever beneficiaries sued, it would lead to an unworkable set of conflicting injunctions and harm the federal fiscal structure.
U.S. Department of Justice filing for the Trump administration
Judge McConnell, who issued the district court order and rejected a stay request there, stressed the human impact of delayed assistance.
People have gone without for too long. Not making payments to them for even another day is simply unacceptable.
Judge John J. McConnell Jr. (U.S. District Court)
Unconfirmed
- Whether transferring $4 billion from Section 32 would definitively exhaust WIC resources in the near term — plaintiffs and the administration dispute the net effect.
- Whether Congress will replenish Section 32 or other accounts quickly enough to prevent further disruptions — future appropriations remain uncertain.
- Whether the appeals court will grant the requested stay by the 4 p.m. ET deadline — the court has not yet ruled.
Bottom line
The immediate legal fight asks whether a court can compel the executive to reallocate statutory funds to cover SNAP payments during a funding lapse, pitting near-term programmatic needs against longer-term fiscal and statutory constraints. The appeals court’s decision — whether to grant a stay or allow the district court order to stand — will have quick, tangible effects for millions of benefit recipients and could shape how courts treat emergency funding reallocations going forward.
For beneficiaries, the practical risk is real and immediate: delayed full SNAP disbursements in November would impose hardship on households and likely raise demand for emergency food assistance. For policymakers, the case raises pressure to resolve appropriations quickly; for courts, it poses a calibration between preventing imminent harm and respecting statutory budgetary lines.
Sources
- ABC News — news report (ABC News)