A last-minute plea landed before a federal appeals court Friday, as the previous administration urgently sought to halt a judge’s order demanding full funding for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). The request came just hours after a Rhode Island judge issued a stark directive: fully fund food aid for 42 million low-income Americans, and do it swiftly.
The core of the dispute centers on $4 billion in contingency funds. U.S. District Judge John McConnell had ordered the Department of Agriculture to allocate these funds to cover SNAP benefits through November, citing an immediate and critical need. He expressed blunt concern during Thursday’s hearing, stating the very real possibility that recipients were already facing hunger.
The administration’s legal team countered with a forceful argument, claiming the lower court’s order fundamentally undermined the balance of power. They characterized the directive as an overreach, suggesting the judge was demanding funds from nonexistent sources – “metaphorical couch cushions,” as their filing stated.
This isn’t simply a matter of bureaucratic delay. Judge McConnell had previously issued an order last week, requiring full funding before November 1st, a first in the program’s six-decade history. He accused the administration of outright non-compliance, stating no action was taken to ensure timely payments.
The judge’s frustration stemmed from a known distribution problem that threatened to delay SNAP payments for weeks, even months, in several states. This potential disruption loomed large, adding urgency to the demand for immediate action and full funding.
The administration’s lawyers placed the blame squarely on Congress, arguing the funding shortfall was a result of legislative inaction, a problem they insisted could only be resolved through congressional intervention. They framed the situation as a crisis born of political stalemate, not administrative failure.
The appeal to the First Circuit Court of Appeals represents the latest escalation in a growing legal battle. The outcome will determine whether millions of Americans will receive the food assistance they rely on, and it highlights a fundamental disagreement over the administration’s responsibilities in ensuring the program’s stability.
