Late Friday, the Supreme Court temporarily blocked a ruling that would have forced the government to support the nation's largest anti-hunger program, a move that the administration said would require it to “grab school lunch money” to feed families.
The ruling, handed down on behalf of the court by Associate Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, briefly suspended a district court order that would have forced the Trump administration to pay $4 billion in food stamp benefits – officially called the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) – to keep it afloat until November amid the ongoing government shutdown.
The suspension expires 48 hours after the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rules on whether food assistance should be forced or allowed to end for the millions of Americans who rely on it.
The courtroom drama began late Thursday when a U.S. district judge ordered the federal government to pay $4 billion by 5 p.m. Friday.
The administration responded with a breakneck appeal, filing it during Friday's breakfast in the 1st Circuit and again at the Supreme Court mid-dinner.
“There is no legal basis for an order directing USDA to somehow find $4 billion in metaphorical couch cushions,” said aide Atty. Gen. Brett A. Shumate wrote in the 1st Circuit appeal.
The administration's only option would be to “starve Peter to feed Paul” by cutting the school lunch program, Shumate writes.
On Friday afternoon, the appeals court declined to immediately block the lower court's ruling and said it would quickly rule on the merits of the funding order.
The administration immediately approached the Supreme Court to block the move by 9:30 p.m. ET.
“The district court’s decision fails at every turn,” Solicitor General John Sauer wrote in his motion, saying it “metastasizes” into “further closure chaos.”
SNAP benefits are key to the ongoing government shutdown. California is one of several states suing the administration to restore the safety net program as negotiations continue to break impasse.
Millions of Americans have struggled to afford groceries since benefits expired on Nov. 1, inspiring many Republican lawmakers to join Democrats in demanding an emergency stopgap solution.
The Trump administration had previously been ordered to provide reserve funding for the program, which it said would cover benefits for about half of November.
But the process was “confusing, chaotic” and “fraught with errors,” according to a report filed by 25 states and the District of Columbia.
Some states, including California, have begun paying out SNAP benefits for this month. Others say partial funding is a functional lockout.
“Many states' existing systems require complete reprogramming to accomplish this task, and given the sudden—and suddenly changing—nature of USDA leadership, this task cannot be accomplished quickly,” it said.
“Recalculations required [the government’s] plan will delay November payments for [state] residents for weeks or months.”
In response, U.S. District Judge John McConnell Jr. of Rhode Island ordered food stamp benefits to be paid in full by the end of the week. He accused the administration of withholding benefits for political gain.
“Faced with a choice between providing assistance and a long delay, [the administration] chose the latter—an outcome that predictably increases harm and undermines the very purpose of the program he is implementing,” he wrote.
“This court is not naive about the Administration’s true motives,” McConnell wrote. “Not only do these statements not address child nutrition funding, but they make it clear that the administration is withholding full SNAP benefits for political purposes.”
The Supreme Court has now extended that deadline until at least the weekend. A more comprehensive decision by the 1st Circuit or the Supreme Court could overturn it entirely.
The 1st Circuit is now the most liberal in the country, with five judges, all of whom were appointed to the bench by Democratic presidents. But the Supreme Court has a conservative majority and regularly sides with the administration in emergency list decisions.
While the 1st District deliberates, both sides argue over how many children will go hungry if the other side wins.
More than 16 million children rely on SNAP benefits. About 30 million people rely on the National School Lunch Program, which the government says it must gut to comply with a court order.
But the same amount of money has already been used to expand the federal Women, Infants and Children program, which pays for baby food and other essentials for some poor families.
“This clearly undermines Defendants' case because WIC is an entirely separate program from child nutrition programs,” McConnell wrote.
In its ruling Friday, the 1st Circuit panel said it would issue a full decision “as expeditiously as possible.”
In her order, Judge Jackson said it was expected “as soon as possible.”
