The Supreme Court on Friday evening issued a temporary suspension of a federal judge’s ruling requiring the Trump administration to distribute full SNAP benefits to 42 million Americans by the end of the day for November.
This action occurred shortly after the 1st Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in Boston rejected the administration’s urgent plea to stop the order regarding food stamp benefits mainly for low-income individuals.
However, the appeals court indicated it would soon make a determination on whether the administration was entitled to a delay of the U.S. District Court’s order by Judge Jack McConnell in Rhode Island as the administration’s appeal progresses.
Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, in the Friday evening ruling benefitting the administration, urged the 1st Circuit to swiftly reach a decision on whether to grant that stay.
“The applicants claim that, without this Court’s intervention, they will need to ‘transfer roughly $4 billion by tonight’ to finance SNAP benefits for November,” Jackson stated.
The funds were meant to be sourced from Section 32 allocations that the Trump administration expressed reluctance to utilize for enhancing a partial SNAP benefits payout that federal officials intended to make. The partial payment would be drawn from $4.6 billion in contingency funds allocated by Congress for this purpose.
The administration initially planned not to issue any SNAP benefits for November due to the ongoing government shutdown.
“In light of the First Circuit’s statements, an administrative stay is necessary to assist the First Circuit’s prompt resolution of the pending stay motion,” Jackson noted.
She indicated that the Supreme Court’s stay “will expire forty-eight hours after the First Circuit resolves the pending motion, which is anticipated to occur swiftly.”
This two-day interval would allow for the Trump administration or the plaintiffs in the case to return to the Supreme Court to contest any ruling made by the 1st Circuit.
It remains uncertain how Jackson’s order will impact the distribution of SNAP benefits.
Earlier on Friday, the U.S. Department of Agriculture informed states that it would commence issuing full SNAP benefits in accordance with McConnell’s order, even while the administration was contesting the decision.
The USDA’s communication did not imply that the administration would backtrack on that approach, even if a higher court were to obstruct the ruling.
The Associated Press noted late Friday that several states had “confirmed that some SNAP beneficiaries had already been granted full payments for November on Friday.”
New York Attorney General Letitia James, addressing Jackson’s ruling, remarked, “This verdict is devastating for the millions of Americans who depend on SNAP to feed their households.”
“It is appalling that the Trump administration opted to contest this in court rather than meet its obligation to the American populace,” asserted James, whose state is among the plaintiffs in another ongoing lawsuit seeking to compel the payment of full SNAP benefits.
“Every day that the federal government holds off is another day that children, seniors, and families encounter genuine hardship,”
The administration disclosed last week that it would not issue any SNAP benefits in November due to the federal shutdown, which commenced on October 1 when Congress failed to pass a bill to provide temporary funding for federal programs, including food stamps.
Previous administrations have distributed benefits during prior shutdowns.
A coalition of plaintiffs, consisting of cities, unions, nonprofits, and a retailer, subsequently filed a lawsuit against the administration in Rhode Island federal court, urging McConnell to mandate the payment of full benefits for the month.
McConnell ordered on October 31 that the administration promptly release at least partial SNAP benefits by utilizing the contingency fund.
He also commanded the administration to investigate whether other available funds could be allocated to fully finance SNAP, which incurs costs of approximately $8 billion monthly.
The administration announced on Monday that it would provide 50% of SNAP benefits in November using the contingency funds. However, it declined to tap into another $4 billion from a Section 32 fund that could have compensated for the shortfall in SNAP payments.
Two days later, the administration indicated a recalculation showed it could offer 65% of the SNAP benefits from the contingency fund.
The plaintiffs then requested McConnell to direct the administration to fulfill the full SNAP payments utilizing accessible funds.
The judge complied on Thursday, indicating during a hearing that the administration’s exclusion of Section 32 funds was “arbitrary and capricious.”
“Individuals have endured enough hardship for too long,” McConnell stated.
“Evidence indicates that individuals will experience hunger, food pantries will be overwhelmed, and unnecessary suffering will ensue” if SNAP is not fully funded, he noted in his order.
The administration on Friday morning approached the 1st Circuit appeals court to impede McConnell’s ruling, even as the USDA conveyed its memo to states indicating its intention to comply with the order.
On Friday night, a three-judge panel from that appeals court rejected the administration’s petition.
The panel remarked that “the government has not contested that it may under [federal law] utilize the Section 32 fund to fulfill SNAP benefits for” November.
Nevertheless, the panel also affirmed that the “government’s appeal for a stay pending the appeal [of McConnell’s order] is still outstanding, and we plan to resolve that motion swiftly.”
