In its filing, the administration argued that the lower court’s injunction intrudes on congressional authority over appropriations. Government lawyers said that allowing “every beneficiary” of a mandatory spending program to litigate for immediate payments could produce conflicting court orders and transform the federal budget into what they described as a “shell game.”
The confrontation arises during a partial government shutdown that has left SNAP without congressional appropriations since the start of the fiscal year. According to USDA data, the nation’s largest food-assistance program serves about 42 million people each month. Judge McConnell previously ordered the agency to use remaining contingency funds to ensure that partial November benefits were distributed on Nov. 1, but the administration limited payments to roughly 60 percent of the usual amount to preserve resources for WIC.
During a hearing on Thursday, the judge expressed skepticism about the rationale for withholding additional SNAP dollars when WIC is projected to remain solvent through May. He concluded that the executive branch was “deliberately delaying” assistance for political leverage, and he instructed USDA to release the full balance to recipients no later than Friday.
President Donald Trump, speaking in the Oval Office a day earlier, said SNAP would not be fully restored until lawmakers reach a broader funding agreement to reopen the government. The Justice Department told the appeals court that the president was “stating a fact” about the lapsed appropriation rather than using SNAP as a bargaining chip, emphasizing that only Congress can end the shutdown.
If the administration’s request for a stay is granted, USDA would continue issuing reduced benefits while the appeal proceeds. Officials warned that transferring Section 32 money to SNAP without assurance of reimbursement could exhaust resources intended for WIC and other commodity-purchase programs.
Imagem: Internet
Legal scholars note that clashes over appropriation authority are rare but not unprecedented. The Congressional Research Service has observed that courts generally defer to Congress on spending matters, though they may intervene when statutory language explicitly authorizes agency action. More background on federal budgeting procedures can be found on the U.S. Government Accountability Office website, which provides nonpartisan analyses of appropriations law.
As the case unfolds, millions of households await clarity on whether they will receive the full amount of food assistance this month. Unless the appellate court intervenes, USDA faces a deadline of 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time to distribute the remaining funds, a process that would require the rapid transfer of billions of dollars through state electronic benefit systems.
Should the stay be denied and the government comply, officials would still need to address funding for December benefits. With no appropriation in place and Section 32 already under strain, agency administrators have cautioned that they lack an alternative pool of money for future months unless Congress enacts new legislation.
The appeals court did not immediately indicate when it would convene a panel or issue a decision. A ruling is expected later today given the time-sensitive nature of the dispute.
Crédito da imagem: Andrew Harnik/Getty Images
