Supreme Court to Review SNAP Benefits Order Amid Government Shutdown

The U.S. Department of Justice has requested the Supreme Court to intervene and freeze a lower court’s order mandating that the Trump administration provide full federal food benefits to approximately 42 million Americans. This request comes shortly after the 1st Circuit Court upheld the order, leaving the administration seeking emergency relief from the nation’s highest court.

Without immediate action from the Supreme Court, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is expected to take steps to ensure complete payments under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) for the month of November by the end of the day on November 3, 2023. This development follows a federal appeals court’s decision to deny the administration’s request for a temporary stay on the ruling, which requires the government to disburse full benefits amidst a government shutdown.

In the emergency appeal submitted to the Supreme Court, Solicitor General D. John Sauer criticized the lower court’s decision, asserting that it improperly assumed the role of a trustee, choosing how to allocate limited federal resources during a shutdown. Sauer stated, “The core power of Congress is that of the purse, while the Executive is tasked with allocating limited resources across competing priorities.”

Earlier in the day, the USDA informed state officials of its efforts to comply with the district court’s order to provide full SNAP benefits for November. The appeals court’s ruling is the latest twist in a legal battle over SNAP benefits that has intensified in recent days, particularly as concerns mount over food insecurity for low-income individuals during the ongoing government shutdown.

The legal proceedings began when a coalition of cities and nonprofit organizations filed suit against the USDA. They sought immediate action due to fears that the disruption in payments would leave millions without adequate food resources. U.S. District Judge John McConnell ordered the Trump administration to utilize a contingency fund to ensure food aid for those enrolled in SNAP for November.

In a filing on Monday, the administration informed the court that while it intended to comply with the order, it could only provide partial benefits due to limited reserve funds. The USDA subsequently sent states guidance for calculating reduced payments to eligible recipients, indicating that it could take weeks for assistance to reach households.

Following McConnell’s ruling, the plaintiffs urged the court for additional relief to mandate that the Trump administration expedite full SNAP payments. In a decision on Thursday, McConnell expressed frustration over the administration’s handling of the situation, accusing officials of undermining his order to expedite aid distribution. He highlighted comments made by President Trump, who suggested that benefits would be released only once the government reopens.

In response to concerns about compliance, the White House clarified that it was adhering to the court’s directive. Nonetheless, McConnell emphasized that the administration must draw from both the contingency fund and another source to fulfill the full SNAP payments. He expressed skepticism regarding the administration’s motives, suggesting that food benefits were being withheld for political reasons.

In its appeal to the 1st Circuit, the Justice Department contended that the judge’s order misrepresents the separation of powers, arguing that it would require the USDA to locate an unrealistic $4 billion from various sources to meet the requirements. Administration officials indicated that while $4.6 billion is available in the contingency fund for partial payments, fulfilling the complete amount of SNAP benefits would necessitate $9 billion.

The Justice Department’s attorneys further argued that diverting funds from Child Nutrition Programs to meet this order could undermine food assistance for millions of children across the country. They stated, “Unfortunately, by injecting itself with its erroneous short-term solution, the district court has scrambled ongoing political negotiations, extending the shutdown and thus undercutting its own objective of ensuring adequate funding for SNAP and all other crucial safety-net programs.”

Conversely, the legal representatives for the cities and nonprofits accused the Trump administration of “callously disregarding” the potential harm to millions of Americans if benefits were not provided at the full level. They urged the 1st Circuit to reject any further delays, emphasizing the immediate need for vital food assistance to families in need.

As this situation unfolds, the outcome of the Supreme Court’s decision will have significant implications for millions of Americans relying on SNAP benefits during an uncertain period marked by government gridlock and rising food insecurity.