A Federal Appeals Court denied the Trump administration’s attempt to end the full payments of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) during the ongoing government shutdown. This decision was made by a three-judge panel who concluded that a lower court’s ruling, which criticized the government’s plan for partial food stamp payments, did not misuse its discretion.
Judge Julie Rickelman, part of the panel, noted that they recognized the technical difficulties of implementing partial payments since they had never been attempted before. She emphasized that no efforts had been made to address these issues in the three weeks prior to the ruling, mentioning that no calculations or logistical measures had been taken to prepare for a potential shortfall.
The court upheld a previous order by U.S. District Judge John McConnell, which required the administration to cover the shortfall in November’s SNAP payments by reallocating about $4 billion from Child Nutrition Funds. The Trump administration had claimed this would jeopardize those programs.
Meanwhile, a ruling by Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson has temporarily halted these payments, although the appeals court ruling has triggered a 48-hour countdown until her hold expires.
This court decision coincides with progress in Congress toward reopening the government. Just before the appeals ruling, the Senate advanced a bill to end the 41-day shutdown, aided by support from a group of Democrats alongside Republicans.
The appeals panel included two judges appointed by former President Biden, Judge Rickelman and Judge Gustavo Gelpi, along with Judge David Barron, appointed by former President Obama.
The Trump administration’s appeal followed Judge McConnell’s earlier ruling that criticized the administration’s actions as arbitrary for not fully funding the Child Nutrition Fund amid the SNAP shutdown. McConnell had indicated that at least $5 billion in SNAP emergency funds would need to be utilized, which he stated wouldn’t be sufficient to cover November’s benefits. He underscored the need for officials to find a way to quickly recalculate payments or tap into other resources to make up the shortfall, as he ordered the full amount to be disbursed following concerns about delays.
The Justice Department criticized the injunction, stating it undermines the separation of powers. They argued that while Congress manages funding, the executive branch is responsible for distributing resources among various priorities. They contended that the lower courts have misinterpreted the shutdown as a valid reason to dictate how limited federal funds are allocated.
