A federal appeals court on Sunday upheld a lower court order requiring the Trump administration to fully fund November Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits during the ongoing government shutdown.
The ruling comes despite the administration’s argument that partial payments were necessary given limited funding, highlighting a growing tension between the judiciary and the executive branch.
The 1st Circuit Court of Appeals stressed that partial payments would create unacceptable delays for Americans relying on federal assistance.
“It also knew full well that making partial payments would be technically difficult, as it had never been done before,” Judge Julie Rikelman wrote in the opinion, according to The Hill.
She sharply criticized the administration for taking no meaningful action in the three weeks leading up to the court order, noting that no calculations, tables or logistical steps were prepared to address potential funding shortfalls.
The decision reinforces U.S. District Judge John McConnell’s requirement that officials cover the remaining $4 billion gap for November SNAP payments by reallocating child nutrition funds, despite concerns that diverting these resources could put other programs at risk.
While payments remain temporarily on hold following a ruling by Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, the appeals court set a 48-hour timeline for the hold to expire, potentially clearing the way for full payments in the coming days.
The 1st Circuit panel included Judges Rikelman and Gustavo Gelpí, Biden appointees and Judge David Barron, an Obama appointee.
The Trump administration’s appeal followed McConnell’s determination that officials acted arbitrarily by failing to transfer child nutrition funds to fully cover SNAP during the shutdown.
Earlier rulings required officials to tap a $5 billion emergency SNAP fund, but that amount proved insufficient to meet November needs.
McConnell ordered either alternative funding sources or recalculated partial payments to cover the remaining gap.
The Justice Department criticized the ruling as an “unprecedented injunction,” warning it blurred the lines between legislative and executive authority.
Officials argued that while Congress controls funding, the executive branch must decide how to allocate limited resources and the court’s decision effectively dictated federal spending priorities.
This conflict has resulted in real consequences for the roughly 42 million Americans who rely on SNAP, as delays in benefits intensify food insecurity nationwide.
As Resist the Mainstream highlighted on Sunday, food banks have reported surges in demand, underscoring the program’s critical role in supporting families during funding gaps.
The appeals court ruling places additional pressure on the administration and Congress to act swiftly.
On Monday, the Trump administration informed the Supreme Court that it is continuing efforts to block the lower court order requiring full payments to millions of Americans, arguing that partial payments were necessary due to limited funding.
The ruling comes amid heightened scrutiny over the balance of power between the judiciary and the executive branch.
Critics of the decision argue it exemplifies judicial overreach, with courts increasingly directing how federal agencies allocate limited resources during funding shortfalls.
Lawmakers continue negotiations to reopen the government, with the appeals court decision adding urgency to their efforts.
Officials must now navigate compliance with the court order while ensuring that essential programs receive adequate funding without court intervention dictating federal policy.
As the Supreme Court considers the administration’s appeal, the outcome could set precedent for future disputes over the separation of powers and the judiciary’s role in overseeing executive branch resource management.
