Trump admin ordered to distribute SNAP benefits, using
contingency fund A pair of rulings both found the effort to suspend
SNAP payments is likely illegal, with one judge issuing a TRO on Friday.
Also: Appeals court rejects court's Bovino check-in order.
A
federal judge Friday ordered the Trump administration to pay SNAP benefits
for November out of a congressionally approved contingency fund, blocking the
administration’s efforts to suspending the key food payments that are
essential to more than 40 million people across the country. Two
federal judges ruled on Friday that the Trump administration’s effort to
suspend the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) payments due to
the ongoing government shutdown is likely illegal, with the second
judge issuing a temporary restraining
order from the bench blocking the effort. Under
the order, the Trump administration must use the $6 billion contingency fund
to continue SNAP payments in November. Under
U.S. District Judge Jack McConnell’s TRO in a federal case
brought in Rhode Island, per the minute entry entered following the hearing,
“the Court order[ed] the USDA to distribute contingency funds; report to the
Court by 12:00 PM on Monday, November 3, 2025, regarding the status of the distribution;
and to honor the existing waivers.” The
order from McConnell, an Obama appointee, followed a Friday hearing in the
case, which was filed on Thursday by a
coalition of nonprofit organizations, cities, and other groups and
included a TRO request and accompanying brief. Although
no opinion has been issued, the docket in the case reflects the hearing and
order:
The
lawsuit, and TRO, address both the SNAP payments — the Supplemental Nutrition
Assistance Program — and the less-covered early termination by the
administration of waivers for able-bodied adults without dependents (referred
to in the litigation as ABAWDs). In
the TRO request, and because the case was brought under the Administrative
Procedure Act, the plaintiffs asked for the administration’s directives
suspending payments to blocked under the APA. That is the mention of 5 U.S.C. 705, and it permits a judge to
“postpone the effective date of action taken by it, pending judicial review.“
In this case, that means stopping the suspension of payments from going into
effect. (Importantly, June’s Supreme Court ruling on “universal
injunctions” specifically did not directly address such actions under the
APA, leaving nationwide orders a possibility under the APA, at least for
now.)
At
the same time, however, U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani, issued an opinion in a multistate
challenge brought on October 28 in
Massachusetts, which also included a TRO request and supporting brief. Talwani’s opinion provided
a more in-depth explanation as to why she concluded the Trump
administration’s effort is likely illegal. Describing
the contingency fund, Talwani, also an Obama appointee, noted “the mandatory
nature of SNAP benefits” under law:
Talwani
then rejected DOJ’s argument that “suspension” is permitted by noting that it
is only permitted “when there are no funds“ — not when the contingency funds
remain available:
Unlike
McConnell, however, Talwani gave the Trump administration until Monday to
reverse course — keeping the TRO request under advisement while allowing the
Trump administration to decided whether it would authorize November payments
in light of the court’s opinion.
Ultimately, however, Talwani’s timeline is — for now — superseded by McConnell’s timeline in Rhode Island, where distribution of benefits was ordered and where DOJ must report back by noon Monday on the “status of the distribution” of those benefits. Seventh Circuit rejects Bovino report-in order
On
Friday afternoon, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit rejected a district court’s
order from earlier in the week that U.S. Border Patrol official Gregory
Bovino report in daily at the federal courthouse in Chicago because the
appeals court concluded the lower court’s order “infringes on the separation
of powers. The
district court’s order that Bovino report in about “the use of force
activities for each day“ had been issued in an ongoing lawsuit about such use
of force and other treatment of protesters and journalists in connection with
protests at the Broadview ICE facility outside Chicago. Importantly,
the rest of the TRO in the case — including this week’s modifications, aside from the Bovino
check-in requirement — remains in effect. The
Seventh Circuit’s order was simply issued “by the court,” with no information
provided about what judges decided the matter or who authored the
three-paragraph order granting the “extraordinary” relief of a writ of
mandamus against a federal district court judge. U.S.
District Judge Sara Ellis had issued the modified TRO requiring Bovino’s
check-ins on October 28 in response to allegations raised by the plaintiffs
in the case about whether the Trump administration — including Bovino
personally — was violating the TRO issued by Ellis in the case. The
next day, the Justice Department went to the Seventh Circuit seeking the writ
of mandamus — an order to a court or other public official — and an
administrative stay relieving Bovino of the report-in obligation while the
appeals court considered the request. That administrative stay was granted,
and the plaintiffs were ordered to file a response — which they did on October 30. In
Friday’s order, the appeals court stated: While this litigation
presents very challenging circumstances, the district court’s order has two
principal failings. First, it puts the court in the position of an inquisitor
rather than that of a neutral adjudicator of the parties’ adversarial
presentations. Second, it sets the court up as a supervisor of Chief Bovino’s
activities, intruding into personnel management decisions of the Executive
Branch. These two problems are related and lead us to conclude that the order
infringes on the separation of powers. Review by appeal at the end of the
case would not solve the problems created in the interim, which justifies
review by a prerogative writ. Although
different courts have different procedures for when orders are issued “for
the court” or “by the court,” as opposed to by a named panel, I don’t think
it’s too much to think that a court should at least have to say who is voting
to issue such an extreme remedy as granting a writ of mandamus against a
lower-court colleague. |
