This piece covers the standoff over SNAP payments during a government shutdown, a federal judge’s order to fully fund benefits using Section 32 child nutrition money, the administration’s immediate response, and the legal arguments on both sides.
This week the Trump administration said it would tap emergency resources to partially cover Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits while the federal government stayed closed. That pledge was intended as a stopgap to protect families during a funding lapse, but it ran into a court order from a Democrat-appointed judge demanding full payments. The clash set up an immediate legal and political fight over who gets to call the shots when appropriations lapse.
U.S. District Judge John McConnell issued a decision on Thursday directing the administration to draw on the Section 32 Child Nutrition Fund to cover SNAP in full. The judge’s order came after benefits briefly lapsed, and it pushed the administration to move from a partial, emergency approach to immediate full funding. The choice forced the USDA to act quickly while a legal appeal was being prepared.
“Last weekend, SNAP benefits lapsed for the first time in our nation’s history, this is a problem that could have and should have been avoided,” McConnell said. “Therefore, the court grants the plaintiff’s motion to enforce and consistent with its prior orders, orders the administration to make the full snap payment to the states by tomorrow, Friday, November 7, utilizing available Section 32 funds in combination with the contingency funds,” he declared. Those lines made clear the court saw the lapse as intolerable and ordered an immediate remedy.
The administration pushed back in court, arguing that Section 32 funds are not meant to serve as a routine backup for SNAP and warning that raiding those accounts could have budget consequences. The judge rejected that view, and he also dismissed the notion that Congress might not replenish any tapped funds. “Considering that, one, Congress with bipartisan support, has always funded the child nutrition program, and two, once a new appropriation bill is passed, ‘amounts appropriated for SNAP could be transferred to the child nutrition program account to effectively reimburse her for the amounts that account covered,’” McConnell asserted.
McConnell also underscored the human stakes in blunt terms, noting the immediate risk faced by children if benefits were not restored. “More importantly, without snap funding for the month of November, 16 million children are immediately at risk of going hungry. This should never happen in America. In fact, it’s likely that SNAP recipients are hungry as we sit here,” he added. Those remarks framed the court’s action as urgent and morally charged, even as critics argued about separation of powers and appropriations norms.
Despite the lawsuit and the pending appeal, the administration moved to comply with the court’s order while it pursues legal review. News outlets reported that the USDA would begin providing full SNAP payments even as the Justice Department seeks to overturn or modify the ruling on appeal. The agency’s internal memo to states was cited as the basis for the immediate operational steps needed to get benefits flowing again to families in need.
It explained that the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) “will complete the processes necessary” to provide money for the time being. That language was meant to reassure states that payments would be processed without delay, even as lawyers sort out the constitutional and statutory questions behind the scenes. In the coming days, the legal fight will center on whether emergency funding mechanisms can be used in this way and how strictly courts can order executive compliance during appropriations disputes.
