Trump administration again asks Supreme Court to block order requiring it to make full SNAP payments

The Trump administration on Monday afternoon once again asked the Supreme Court to block an order by a federal judge in Rhode Island that would require the government to fully fund the federal food-stamp program for November despite the government shutdown. The ruling by U.S. District Judge John J. McConnell, Jr., U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer wrote, “inject[s] the federal courts into the political branches’ closing efforts to end this shutdown.” The Trump administration “unequivocally agrees that any lapse in SNAP funding is tragic.” But, as he had stressed on Friday night when he first asked the justices to intervene, Sauer said that “[t]he only way to end this crisis—which the Executive is adamant to end—is for Congress to reopen the government.” 

The 10-page brief filed shortly before 4 p.m. EST on Monday was the latest in a whirlwind of activity surrounding a challenge by a group of nonprofits and cities to the Department of Agriculture’s announcement on Oct. 24 that it would suspend benefits for the food-stamp program, known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, for November because of the government shutdown. 

In an order on Nov. 1, McConnell directed the government either to fully fund SNAP benefits for November by Nov. 3 or to partially fund the benefits, using emergency funds, by Nov. 5. But McConnell was dissatisfied with the delays that followed the Trump administration’s efforts to implement the latter option, writing that “compliance is achieved when Americans are fed, not when the federal government shifts the administrative burden of disbursing funds onto the States—especially when there is still no clear disbursement date in sight.” In an order on Nov. 6, McConnell then instructed the Trump administration to fully fund SNAP benefits for November by Friday, Nov. 7. 

The Trump administration went to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit, asking that court to pause McConnell’s ruling – and to issue a temporary block, known as an administrative stay, while it considered the government’s request. That court denied the government’s bid for an administrative stay on Friday but indicated that it would act “as quickly as possible” on the request for a stay pending appeal. 

Sauer then came to the Supreme Court on Friday night, asking the justices to intervene. He called McConnell’s order requiring the government to fully fund the SNAP program for November “unprecedented,” adding that it “makes a mockery of the separation of powers.” More broadly, he wrote, if left in place, it would “sow further shutdown chaos” as it would lead to other challenges to the government’s failure to fund benefit programs. With McConnell’s Friday night deadline looming, he asked the court to quickly issue an administrative stay – by 9:30 p.m. EST.

Shortly before 9:30 p.m., Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who at least initially fields emergency requests from the 1st Circuit, issued that administrative stay, which put the government’s funding obligation on hold until 48 hours after the 1st Circuit’s ruling on the government’s request for a stay. 

On Sunday night, the 1st Circuit rejected the Trump administration’s plea for a stay, leaving McConnell’s order in place for now. 

That prompted Jackson to issue a new order on Monday morning, instructing the Trump administration to quickly inform the Supreme Court whether it planned to continue to seek a stay and, if so, to file any supplemental briefing by Monday afternoon. 

Sauer began his brief on Monday afternoon by noting that on Sunday night “the Senate began the process for ending the shutdown and funding the government—including full funding for SNAP through the end of the fiscal year—though the outcome of that process remains, to be sure, uncertain.” If the government were to reopen, Sauer said, the government’s application for a stay of McConnell’s ruling would be moot – that is, no longer a live controversy. But McConnell’s order, Sauer told the justices, “throw[s] a massively inappropriate new variable into negotiations” and is “also sowing upheaval in the SNAP program itself.” 

“The irreparable harms of allowing district courts to inject themselves into the shutdown and decide how to triage limited funds are grave enough to warrant a stay,” Sauer wrote. Moreover, he added, McConnell’s ruling is “indefensible on the merits.” Indeed, he suggested, “the court of appeals barely defended the district court’s legal reasoning.” 

Therefore, Sauer concluded, the Supreme Court should “immediately” extend the administrative stay that Jackson issued on Friday night “to let the political process that is rapidly playing out reach its conclusion.” And, if the shutdown does not end, he said, the court should put McConnell’s order on hold. 

The challengers have been ordered to file their supplemental brief by 8 a.m. EST on Tuesday. The Supreme Court could act on the government’s request at any point after that.