An alliance of churches across Rhode Island, united in an ecumenical effort, is passionately urging a federal judge to hold the Trump administration accountable for adhering to a temporary restraining order (TRO). This order mandates that the federal government continue to provide Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits to American families in need.

The legal battle began when the plaintiffs took action against the Trump administration, challenging a series of memoranda from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). These memos had suspended the release of November SNAP benefits, citing the ongoing government shutdown as the reason. However, the plaintiffs argue that the USDA’s claims of financial constraints are unfounded. They point out the existence of approximately $3 billion in congressionally-approved SNAP “contingency funds” that have yet to be utilized.

The case has seen rapid developments. Just a day after the lawsuit was filed, U.S. District Judge John James McConnell Jr., appointed by Barack Obama, granted the TRO during a bench ruling. The subsequent minute order instructed the USDA to deploy the contingency funds and required them to update the court on the status of the distribution by noon on Monday, November 3, 2025.

Despite this, the plaintiffs now assert that the government is failing to comply with the court’s directive, leaving them no choice but to press for enforcement of the order.

Now, the plaintiffs say the government is simply not complying.

On Monday, in a four-page status report, the government said it was working “diligently to comply with the Court’s order on the short timeline provided by the Court and during a government shutdown.”

To that end, in an accompanying eight-page declaration, an official with the USDA clarified SNAP contingency funds would “be obligated to cover 50% of eligible households’ current allotments.”

On Tuesday, in a five-page motion to enforce the TRO and concomitant 26-page memorandum in support, the plaintiffs, led by the Rhode Island State Council of Churches, say the government’s “failure to provide full benefits” is a violation of the court’s order.

“Defendants’ choice to withhold full SNAP payments is not consistent with this Order,” the motion reads. “Because it is now clear that due to Defendants’ course of conduct, and by their own admission, undertaking a partial payment plan at this point cannot meet the Court’s directives or adequately remedy the harm Plaintiffs are suffering, the Court should grant Plaintiffs’ motion to enforce and should temporarily enjoin and compel Defendants to release the withheld funding, in its entirety, for November SNAP benefits.”

In a later-issued seven-page formal TRO, McConnell gave the Trump administration two options for November SNAP benefits.

The first option was to pay out this month’s allotments in full. The second option was to issue “partial payments” while working to “expeditiously resolve the administrative and clerical burdens” the USDA previously cited as a barrier for releasing reduced benefits.

The plaintiffs say the Trump administration is choosing a different, not-allowed, third choice for what might be considered November SNAP benefits in name only for millions of Americans.

“Defendants’ action reflects neither option,” the Tuesday memo reads. “Defendants’ status report and accompanying declaration, filed yesterday, make clear that they have failed to expeditiously resolve the burdens associated with partial SNAP payments—in fact, Defendants indicate that, as a result of their choice, it may take up to several months for partial benefits to be provided.”

And, all indications are that the government has no intent on complying with the court’s order — at least in terms of timelines.

Also on Tuesday, President Donald Trump posted on Truth Social, saying SNAP benefits “will be given only when the Radical Left Democrats open up government, which they can easily do, and not before!”

While the 45th and 47th president’s words were not cited in either Thursday filing submitted by the plaintiffs, the post will likely be cited by either the plaintiffs or the judge going forward.

The plaintiffs say the government’s flouting of the order comes even as the government’s food-related accounts are flush with cash.

In the court’s order, McConnell said full November payments could also be made by tapping into Child Nutrition Program funds. The government, in turn, said it would not subject that program to “an unprecedented and significant shortfall.”

The plaintiffs rubbished that math, at length:

[E]ven if the current lapse in appropriations continued, funding for child nutrition programs would not in fact face any shortfall now—or even anytime soon. There is currently approximately $23.35 billion available in the child nutrition account. In the government’s own telling, child nutrition programs require just over $3 billion per month (or approximately $36.27 billion total this fiscal year). If the government transferred the $4 billion necessary to make full November SNAP payments, $19.35 billion would remain—enough to fully fund child nutrition through May and beyond, even if the current lapse in appropriations lasted that long. There is no realistic risk of any child going hungry as a result of such transfer—but a very real and immediate risk of 16 million children not getting the sustenance they need if USDA does not fully fund November SNAP benefits.

“Because of Defendants’ decision to withhold full funds for November SNAP benefits, Plaintiffs’ members and constituents, and millions of other Americans, will continue to go hungry as their benefits are delayed and reduced,” the memo goes on.

In the alternative of an enforcement order, the plaintiffs are seeking a second TRO that would “compel” the government “to release funding, in its entirety, for November SNAP benefits.”