The federal appeals court refused a last-minute request from the Trump administration to pause a lower court order that forces the government to fully fund the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program for November during the shutdown. The 1st Circuit’s decision came as USDA officials told regional SNAP directors they are moving to comply with the judge’s directive. The administration then launched an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court while warning of immediate financial and operational consequences.
The dispute centers on whether the government can issue partial benefits to about 42 million Americans amid a prolonged shutdown, or must deliver full SNAP payments for November as ordered by a district judge. U.S. District Judge Jack McConnell blocked the partial approach and gave the government a tight deadline to obey the ruling. That decision prompted the appeals request that was denied on Friday, leaving the administration with few options but to press upward in the courts.
The 1st Circuit’s refusal to grant a temporary stay means the USDA must move quickly to meet the judge’s timetable, and agency officials signaled they expect to do so. Patrick Penn, deputy under secretary for USDA’s Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services, sent a note to regional directors outlining the agency response. “FNS is working towards implementing November 2025 full benefit issuances in compliance with the November 6, 2025, order from the District Court of Rhode Island.”
Legal teams for the administration argued the judge’s order creates a constitutional and practical crisis by effectively directing transfers of billions of dollars without clear statutory authority. The administration said the district court’s action intrudes on powers reserved to Congress and the executive branch, raising separation of powers concerns. Those claims are central to the emergency appeal that landed at the Supreme Court late Friday evening.
DOJ ACCUSES FEDERAL JUDGE OF ‘MAKING MOCKERY OF THE SEPARATION OF POWERS’ IN SNAP APPEAL
The department framed its emergency filing around the scale and speed of the required transfer, noting an estimated $4 billion would need to move by the court-imposed deadline. Officials asked the Supreme Court for an immediate administrative stay, arguing the orders pose “imminent, irreparable harms.” “Given the imminent, irreparable harms posed by these orders, which require the government to transfer an estimated $4 billion by tonight, the Solicitor General respectfully requests an immediate administrative stay of the orders pending the resolution of this application by no later than 9:30pm this evening,” the administration said in its filing.
From a Republican perspective, the fight highlights a larger problem: judges deciding budgetary priorities when Congress has not passed funding measures. Conservative voices argue that court-ordered spending undercuts democratic accountability and bypasses the appropriations process. They say the right fix is legislative action to reopen the government and fund programs, not judicial mandates that reshuffle responsibilities among branches.
The USDA faces a logistical squeeze in converting a judicial demand into payments within a day, and officials are already coordinating across regional offices to process the issuances. SNAP operations touch retailers, state agencies, and beneficiaries, and the agency worries mistakes under pressure could mean delayed or incorrect benefits. Yet the agency also has a legal obligation now to follow the district court order unless higher courts intervene.
Critics of the administration insist that the government has discretion in how to distribute limited funds during a shutdown, and that partial issuances are a lawful response to constrained appropriations. They argue courts should be cautious when ordering mandatory spending during a lapse in appropriations. The administration rejects that view, insisting the district court’s remedy exceeds proper judicial reach.
The timing of the emergency appeal to the Supreme Court was designed to force a rapid decision, but the high court’s willingness to act on such deadlines varies. If the justices deny the stay, the administration must implement full benefits quickly and absorb the fiscal and procedural fallout. If the stay is granted, the case will continue through the appeals process and the underlying separation of powers questions will remain unresolved.
On the ground, SNAP recipients and state agencies are left in a familiar limbo as the branches of government spar over authority and funding. Some beneficiaries could see the difference between a partial and a full issuance in the weeks ahead, and those consequences are not abstract for families budgeting for food. The legal fight will shape how shutdowns affect basic services and who ultimately decides how to allocate limited taxpayer dollars.
Graduate Student, wife, engaged political and legal writer.