Lawyers from around two dozen states are set to appear in court on Monday in an effort to prevent the Trump administration from imposing financial penalties on states that fully fund Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits.
This latest filing adds to an already chaotic situation regarding the nation’s largest hunger relief program, which supports about 42 million low-income Americans, and is currently impacted by the ongoing government shutdown.
New York Attorney General Letitia James emphasized on Monday that food aid isn’t a political debate: “It’s a moral obligation, and no one should go hungry because their government refuses to provide food,” she stated.
The urgency of this intervention stems from the Trump administration’s threat made on Saturday, indicating they would impose hefty penalties on states providing full SNAP benefits, despite a ruling from U.S. District Judge John McConnell demanding those benefits be fully available, rather than just the 65% previously proposed.
Two judges have stipulated that the Trump administration must maintain the full SNAP benefits as the shutdown continues.
On Monday afternoon, Trump officials submitted a request to the Supreme Court to uphold an emergency stay issued last week by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. They highlighted the progress Congress was making towards resolving the shutdown, arguing that the federal courts shouldn’t interfere in this matter without authority. “The solution to this crisis is not for federal courts to reallocate resources without legal authority,” they added.
The states have until tomorrow morning to respond to the Supreme Court.
Judge McConnell criticized the Trump administration for agreeing to only fund 65% of SNAP benefits, expressing concern for those who might be going hungry right now. His order was issued less than 24 hours after he highlighted this issue.
In their appeal, attorneys for Trump contended that the judge’s ruling undermined the separation of powers, accusing him of overstepping his judicial authority.
“There is no legal basis for an order directing USDA to somehow find $4 billion from a metaphorical couch cushion,” one Justice Department lawyer remarked, describing the judge’s order as an “unprecedented injunction.”
The USDA had directed states that failure to adhere to the administration’s plan—resulting in reduced SNAP benefits—could lead to suspension of federal cost-sharing or they could be held financially accountable.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta, alongside New York’s Letitia James and New Jersey’s Matt Platkin, voiced their concerns before heading to court for emergency intervention. “We are asking the court to block Saturday night’s guidance and immediately make full SNAP benefits available,” Bonta expressed, accusing the Trump administration of politicizing SNAP benefits, which assist about 1 in 8 Americans.
Separately, Trump officials informed the Supreme Court that they would persist in seeking an emergency stay of another federal ruling keeping SNAP benefits fully funded amid the shutdown.
U.S. Attorney General John Sauer indicated in a Supreme Court filing that the administration’s aim remains to secure a stay and that meaningful action from Congress to solve the shutdown is unlikely after an extended period of over 40 days.
