A Rhode Island federal judge recently criticized the Trump administration for its inability to prevent the lapse of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits during the government shutdown, affecting up to 42 million people. This marked a historical first for the nation. In response, the Department of Justice (DOJ) swiftly filed emergency appeal documents, shifting the blame to Congress while accusing the judge of undermining the separation of powers.

The DOJ’s submission to the 1st Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals initiated what promised to be a hectic Friday. The appellate court quickly instructed the plaintiff coalition, which includes churches, cities, nonprofits, a labor union, and a grocery store, to provide their response by midday.

The Trump administration, in its urgent motion to delay the enforcement of U.S. District Judge John McConnell’s ruling to fully disburse SNAP benefits by Friday, began by attributing the issue to Congress. The administration argued that the crisis stemmed from Congress’s failure to allocate necessary funds for SNAP in the current fiscal year.

“Congress has not provided the necessary appropriations for SNAP benefits this fiscal year,” stated the DOJ. “Despite exhausting the entire SNAP contingency reserve—an action taken by the Department of Agriculture (USDA) earlier this week in response to a temporary restraining order from the district court—only partial November benefits can be covered.”

The administration labeled the situation as a crisis caused by congressional inaction, asserting that resolution requires congressional intervention. They further criticized Judge McConnell, appointed by Barack Obama, for asserting authority to resolve the “SNAP shortfall” by reallocating billions from school lunch funds within a single day.

Calling it an “unprecedented injunction makes a mockery of the separation of powers,” the DOJ asserted McConnell had “no lawful basis” to order the USDA to search its “metaphorical couch cushions” for hundreds of billions of pennies.

Worse yet, the DOJ said, the judge claimed it was “arbitrary and capricious” of the government to “decline to raid school-lunch money to instead fund SNAP benefits,” framing that not as robbing Peter to pay Paul but “starv[ing] Peter to feed Paul, as it were.”

The DOJ also claimed that President Donald Trump’s social media post three days ago, in which he said SNAP benefits “will be given only when the Radical Left Democrats open up government, which they can easily do, and not before!” — despite McConnell’s contingency funding order — was “just stating a fact.”

“The district court also accused the President of bad faith for declaring that full SNAP benefits would not resume until the government reopens. But that was just stating a fact—the appropriation has lapsed, and it is up to Congress to solve this crisis,” the DOJ continued. “Unfortunately, the district court’s short-sighted injunction has thrust the Judiciary into the ongoing shutdown negotiations and may well have the effect of extending the lapse in appropriations, exacerbating the problem that the court was misguidedly trying to mitigate.”

The judge had given the government two options.

The first 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 to releasing reduced benefits.

The groups suing the Trump administration one week ago assigned blame to the executive for “needlessly” plunging SNAP into a “crisis,” arguing that there were billions of dollars in contingency funds for food stamps available.

Even more recently, the plaintiffs said the government “failed” to stop the crisis even on a partial basis.

In response after noon, the plaintiffs insisted on McConnell’s order remaining in place.

The Trump administration, the response said, “failed to comply” and should not be rewarded with delay after its “arbitrary and pretextual refusal to provide full funding to provide relief for children and families who are going hungry today.”

“[T]he district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that their decision to make partial
payments despite the attending weeks or months of delays was arbitrary and that—given the emergency circumstances of the government’s own creation—this left only one choice available to mitigate the irreparable harm to Plaintiffs and millions of other Americans: utilize the undisputedly available funds to make full November payments,” the filing said, adding that is “facially implausible” to say that there is a “realistic threat” of underfunding Child Nutrition programs by diverting billions of dollars to SNAP.

“Defendants’ claimed desire to conserve those funds for Child Nutrition programs—programs that have $23 billion on hand and require only $3 billion per month to operate—is facially implausible,” the response went on.