In
SNAP appeal, Trump admin says it faces more harm than those without food:
ANALYSIS
Story by James
Sample
There is a paragraph on page 22 of the Trump
administration's appeal of a federal judge's requirement that it
make full
November SNAP payments that has to be seen to be
believed.
The opening sentence asserts that "the district
court's order threatens significant and irreparable harm to the government
which outweighs any claimed injury to plaintiffs."
At stake is the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
Program—SNAP—which provides monthly benefits to roughly 42 million Americans.
During the ongoing government shutdown, the U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA) planned to fund only part of the November
payments, prompting lawsuits from cities, religious groups, and
nonprofits that argued that the administration was flouting its legal
obligation to deliver full benefits.
Nam Y.
Huh/AP - PHOTO: A SNAP EBT information sign is displayed at a bakery as a woman
walks past in Chicago, Nov. 2, 2025.
Twice, a Rhode Island federal judge, John J. McConnell
Jr., agreed, ordering the government to draw on existing accounts to cover
the gap. Twice, the administration appealed, contending that the judiciary had
usurped Congress's spending power by directing the executive branch to find the
money.
The Justice Department's latest emergency filing makes that
claim in even starker terms. It asserts that McConnell's injunction "makes
a mockery of the separation of powers" and that there is "no lawful
basis" for forcing the USDA "to somehow find $4 billion in the
metaphorical couch cushions." It also warns that by compelling compliance,
the court has "thrust the Judiciary into the ongoing shutdown
negotiations," implying that judicial enforcement of basic statutory
duties somehow exacerbates the fiscal standoff.
What SNAP recipients need to know amid the
government shutdown
But what makes the filing remarkable is not just its
tone—it's the value judgment embedded in it. Traditionally, when courts decide
whether to grant emergency relief, there is a calculus: the courts consider
which outcome would cause greater damage, keeping the challenged policy on hold
or letting it take effect? Here, the "policy" in question is the
administration's refusal to fully fund SNAP despite having ample reserves.
The Justice Department argues that the "irreparable
harm" lies in being required to obey the court order and spend the money.
By that logic, the government's institutional discomfort outweighs the hunger
of millions of families, seniors, veterans and children whose grocery
money hangs in the balance.
Whether in disputes over public health, environmental
regulation, or economic relief, the Trump administration's lawyers
have often equated executive prerogative with public interest—as though what
benefits the administration necessarily benefits the nation. In this case, that
conflation leads to the extraordinary claim that "the government"
suffers greater harm by feeding people than by letting them go hungry.
The administration's insistence that it "cannot"
find the funds also rings hollow. By its own admission, the USDA controls
multiple accounts with more than enough money to sustain SNAP for the
month—including a $5 billion emergency reserve created by Congress specifically
for that purpose. It has already drawn on similar pools of money to protect
other nutrition programs from shutdown disruptions. The problem, in other
words, is not fiscal incapacity but political choice.
The Justice Department's appeal thus functions as both
legal brief and ideological statement. It asks the courts to privilege
administrative convenience over human need.
If that argument succeeds, the precedent would reach far
beyond SNAP. It would signal that any time a court orders the government to
meet a statutory duty—to pay benefits, deliver services, or enforce
protections—the executive may claim "irreparable harm" merely because
it prefers not to act. That is not separation of powers; it is the substitution
of political preference for law.
Judge McConnell, for his part, put the matter bluntly:
"This should never happen in America." He was referring to the
spectacle of a federal government choosing to let its citizens go hungry while
pleading poverty amid abundant reserves.
The Justice Department's legal arguments transform that
spectacle into doctrine.
James Sample is an ABC News legal contributor and a
constitutional law professor at Hofstra University. The views expressed in
this story do not necessarily reflect those of ABC News or The Walt Disney
Company.
