Lead: The U.S. Department of Agriculture told states on Friday that it is taking steps to implement a federal judge’s order to deliver full Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits for November to roughly 42 million Americans. Patrick Penn, deputy undersecretary for Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services, said the agency is “working towards implementing November 2025 full benefit issuances in compliance with” U.S. District Judge John McConnell’s ruling. The administration has said it will complete processes “later today” to make funds available, even as the Justice Department has appealed and asked the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for emergency relief by 4 p.m. The dispute follows the USDA’s earlier notice that it could not guarantee full November benefits because of the government shutdown.
Key Takeaways
- The USDA told states it is preparing to issue full November SNAP benefits to about 42 million people following Judge John McConnell’s order issued Thursday.
- Patrick Penn, a senior USDA official, said the agency will “complete the processes necessary to make funds available” later Friday to cover full payments.
- The Justice Department has filed an appeal with the 1st Circuit and sought an emergency stay, requesting a decision by 4 p.m. Friday on blocking the district court order.
- McConnell previously directed the administration to use a contingency fund to cover November benefits and now ordered use of that fund plus money from a pot for Child Nutrition programs.
- Plaintiffs — a coalition of cities and nonprofits — sued after USDA notified states it would halt full November assistance amid the government shutdown.
- The administration told the court it had only enough reserves to deliver partial benefits; states were sent calculations for reduced payments earlier in the week.
- McConnell said public comments and social media posts prompted concern that benefits were being withheld for political reasons.
Background
The dispute traces to a government shutdown that disrupted routine federal disbursements. Late last month the USDA informed state agencies it could not ensure full SNAP benefit issuances for November, saying reserve funds were insufficient while many federal operations remained paused. A coalition of cities and nonprofits responded by suing the agency, arguing that withholding full benefits would cause immediate hardship for millions reliant on the program to buy groceries.
On Thursday, U.S. District Judge John McConnell ruled that the USDA must tap a contingency fund to make November SNAP payments, and he directed the agency to use an additional fund designated for Child Nutrition programs if necessary. The administration first told the district court it would comply but warned it could only cover partial payments with existing reserves. State agencies were provided information for calculating reduced payments, prompting plaintiffs to seek additional relief requiring immediate full payments to beneficiaries.
Main Event
On Friday the USDA issued guidance to states stating it is “working towards implementing November 2025 full benefit issuances in compliance with” McConnell’s order. Patrick Penn, the agency’s deputy undersecretary for Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services, said in the notice that later the same day the administration “will complete the processes necessary to make funds available” for full SNAP disbursements. The announcement came as the Justice Department appealed McConnell’s order and asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit to block the injunction and act on its emergency motion by 4 p.m. Friday.
McConnell’s earlier ruling followed the plaintiffs’ argument that halting or reducing SNAP payments would inflict immediate harm on millions of low-income households. The judge had initially ordered the USDA to use contingency reserves to cover benefits; in his latest decision he expanded that direction to require drawing on a separate pool used for Child Nutrition programs if required. The court’s language criticized actions and statements from administration officials that, McConnell said, undermined the intent and effectiveness of his earlier order.
The conflict gained a layer of political tension when President Trump posted on social media on Tuesday that benefits would be given “only when the Radical Left Democrats open up government, which they can easily do, and not before!” The post prompted concern among plaintiffs and the court about whether the administration intended to follow the district court’s mandate. The White House later clarified publicly that it would comply with the judge’s order, but the judge found subsequent actions insufficient and demanded immediate full payments.
Analysis & Implications
Operationally, shifting from partial to full SNAP issuances on short notice requires the USDA and state agencies to complete accounting, fund transfers and benefit calculations in compressed timelines. State agencies had already received worksheets to determine reduced payments, which means operational systems and beneficiary communications may need rapid revision to reflect full amounts. Delivering full benefits later in the month could shorten the time recipients have to access funds, complicating grocery purchasing cycles for millions.
Legally, the Justice Department’s appeal elevates the dispute to the 1st Circuit, where judges must weigh whether the district court exceeded its authority or correctly ordered use of contingency and Child Nutrition funds. The DOJ’s emergency request for a stay by 4 p.m. signals the administration’s intent to seek rapid appellate intervention; if the appeals court blocks the district ruling, states and recipients could face renewed uncertainty. Conversely, an appellate rejection of the stay would reinforce the district court’s view that immediate relief is necessary to prevent harm.
Politically, the episode highlights the intersection between a funding standoff in Washington and programs that provide near-term assistance to vulnerable households. Public statements by senior officials and the president raised questions in court filings about whether fiscal decisions were being influenced by political strategy rather than administrative necessity. The outcome will shape expectations about how judges respond when basic services are disrupted by shutdowns and whether agencies may pause or redirect program funds during political impasses.
Comparison & Data
| Scenario | Estimated People Affected | Funds Source |
|---|---|---|
| Full November SNAP issuance | ~42,000,000 | Contingency fund + Child Nutrition pot (per court) |
| Partial issuance (USDA warning) | ~42,000,000 | Available reserve only |
The table above summarizes the two paths the USDA described: issuing full benefits to the same universe of roughly 42 million people using contingency and child nutrition funds as directed by the court, or providing only partial benefits based on limited reserves. States had been sent calculations for reduced payments earlier in the week; a move to full payments requires reversing those calculations and ensuring funds reach recipients quickly.
Reactions & Quotes
Across the political and civic spectrum, responses blended legal reasoning with concern about immediate household impacts. Courts, advocacy groups and officials framed remarks with attention to both legal process and food-security consequences.
“We are working towards implementing November 2025 full benefit issuances in compliance with the court’s order.”
Patrick Penn, USDA (agency guidance)
USDA’s deputy undersecretary issued that statement in guidance to states outlining the agency’s intent to make funds available later Friday. The language underscores the agency’s public position that it will follow the court’s directive while acknowledging the operational steps still required.
“Benefits will be given only when the Radical Left Democrats open up government, which they can easily do, and not before!”
President Donald J. Trump (social media)
The president’s post, referenced by Judge McConnell in his opinion, was central to the judge’s concern that public comments could reflect an intent to withhold aid for political leverage. The White House later issued a clarification stating compliance with the court order.
“Withholding full benefits would inflict immediate harm on households that rely on SNAP to purchase groceries.”
Plaintiff coalition (cities and nonprofits, summary of court filings)
Plaintiffs representing a coalition of cities and nonprofit organizations argued to the court that full SNAP payments were necessary to prevent acute food insecurity for millions; the district court granted relief in part on that basis.
Unconfirmed
- Whether the USDA’s processes completed “later today” will be sufficient for states to disburse full payments before weekend or end-of-month processing windows; timing remains contingent on state systems.
- How quickly the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals will rule on the Justice Department’s emergency stay request and whether it will temporarily block the district court’s order.
- Exact dollar amounts that would be shifted from the Child Nutrition pot to cover SNAP in November and any downstream effect on school meal programs pending formal accounting.
Bottom Line
Federal officials say they will move to issue full November SNAP benefits to about 42 million recipients in response to a district court order, but the Justice Department’s appeal to the 1st Circuit creates legal uncertainty. Operationally, states and benefit systems face a compressed timeline to reverse partial-payment calculations and ensure households receive full amounts in a timely way.
Beyond this month’s disbursements, the case underscores broader vulnerabilities in social-safety-net delivery during funding lapses, and it sets a possible precedent for judicial intervention to ensure benefits continue during shutdowns. Watch for a rapid appellate decision that could either reinstate the district order or restore the agency’s ability to limit payments based on reserves.
Sources
- CBS News (news report)
- U.S. Department of Agriculture (official agency)
- U.S. Department of Justice (official filing/appeals)
- U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island (court)