A federal appeals court on Friday declined to block a lower court’s order compelling the Trump administration to fully fund Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits for 42 million Americans this month, despite the ongoing US government shutdown that has disrupted federal operations and welfare payments nationwide.
The Boston-based 1st US Circuit Court of Appeals issued the ruling just hours after the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) notified states that it would comply with the order and release funds to guarantee full food assistance payments for November. The move came after US District Judge William McConnell in Rhode Island directed the administration on Thursday to use $4 billion in reserve funds to restore benefits, accusing federal officials of “knowingly jeopardising” the welfare of millions of Americans for “political reasons.”
In its emergency motion, the Department of Justice (DOJ) had urged the appeals court to stay McConnell’s ruling, arguing that the court had overstepped its authority by ordering the executive branch to reallocate funds Congress had designated for other purposes. However, the appellate judges refused to intervene, allowing the lower court’s decision to stand — at least temporarily — ensuring that SNAP recipients will receive full benefits for November.
The dispute marks an unprecedented breakdown in federal nutrition assistance funding. SNAP payments lapsed on November 1 for the first time in the program’s 60-year history due to the shutdown, leaving millions of low-income families struggling to buy groceries. Food pantries in several states have reported a surge in demand, with many recipients resorting to skipping meals or cutting back on essentials such as medications to make ends meet.
SNAP, formerly known as food stamps, provides monthly aid to Americans earning less than 130% of the federal poverty line — roughly $19,578 annually for an individual and $40,560 for a family of four. The maximum monthly benefit for fiscal year 2026 stands at $298 for a one-person household and $546 for two people.
Following the USDA’s memo, New York, New Jersey, and Massachusetts quickly confirmed they had directed their state agencies to begin disbursing full SNAP benefits, citing the court’s ruling. “President Trump should never have put the American people in this position,” Massachusetts Governor Maura Healey said, calling the administration’s initial refusal to release funds “a reckless act of political hostage-taking.”
The ongoing legal battle has centered on how much funding the USDA can legally redirect without congressional approval. Last week, Judge McConnell had ordered the administration to tap at least $5.25 billion in emergency funds to partially sustain the program, which costs between $8.5 billion and $9 billion per month. The USDA, however, opted to use only $4.65 billion from contingency reserves — after deducting $600 million for state administrative costs — resulting in reduced benefits for millions.
In his Thursday ruling, McConnell sided with a coalition of cities and nonprofits, represented by Democracy Forward, a progressive legal advocacy group, which argued that reducing benefits would violate federal law and cause irreparable harm. The judge agreed, ruling that the administration had “failed to adequately consider the logistical burdens and humanitarian consequences” of its plan.
He further criticised the USDA for ignoring the fact that state welfare systems would need weeks or even months to recalibrate software and databases to handle reduced payments, potentially causing severe processing delays. “The agency’s justification was neither rational nor lawful,” McConnell wrote, accusing the administration of prioritising politics over public welfare.
The DOJ, in its appeal, contended that the court’s order improperly forced the executive branch to spend money not yet appropriated by Congress. It maintained that the shutdown’s funding limitations precluded reallocation of contingency funds beyond statutory limits.
Despite the administration’s objections, the 1st Circuit’s refusal to stay McConnell’s ruling ensures that funding continues uninterrupted for now. However, the panel has yet to issue a final decision on the administration’s broader appeal, which could determine whether SNAP funding remains stable in December if the shutdown persists.
In a strongly worded response filed Friday, lawyers for the plaintiffs said the government’s resistance showed “callous disregard for the harm that would befall nearly one in eight Americans” if the payments were cut. “The Court should deny Defendants’ motion and not allow them to further delay getting vital food assistance to individuals and families who need it now,” the brief stated.
The ruling marks a rare judicial rebuke of the Trump administration during the protracted shutdown, now entering its second month and already the longest in US history. The decision is expected to provide short-term relief to millions of Americans facing food insecurity — though it underscores the growing strain on federal programs as political gridlock in Washington drags on without resolution.
