The Justice Department seeks an emergency stay to halt billions in food stamp disbursements ordered by a lower court — as millions of Americans face uncertainty and state leaders vow to deliver aid despite political gridlock.
The move came just hours after the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals denied the administration’s emergency stay request, affirming a lower court order that required the government to pay out full SNAP benefits to more than 42 million Americans.
In the filing, Solicitor General D. John Sauer urged the high court to intervene “by no later than 9:30 p.m. Friday,” warning that distributing billions in benefits could result in an “irretrievable transfer of funds” that might undermine other federal nutrition and social welfare programs.
“Once those billions are out the door, there is no ready mechanism for the government to recover those funds — to the significant detriment of other critical social programs,” Sauer wrote in the government’s brief.
The emergency application was directed to Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who oversees such matters for the 1st Circuit. Jackson may decide on the stay individually or refer the matter to the full Supreme Court.
⚖️ Court Battles and Political Stakes
The 1st Circuit’s ruling, issued by Chief Judge David Barron and Judges Gustavo Gelpí and Julie Rikelman, all Democratic appointees, rejected the administration’s argument that the order to pay full benefits would create budgetary chaos. The court noted that the government could lawfully use funds from the Section 32 agricultural account to fulfill SNAP obligations for November.
The SNAP program, the nation’s largest food aid initiative, ran out of its regular funding on November 1 — marking the first lapse in its 60-year history. Without intervention, tens of millions of low-income households would face interruptions in access to food benefits.
Administration officials have argued that fully funding SNAP could divert critical funds from child nutrition programs, such as school meal initiatives. The Justice Department called the lower court’s order “judicial overreach,” asserting that budgeting decisions belong to the executive and legislative branches, not the judiciary.
“The government’s decision not to handicap one program to backstop another was eminently reasonable,” Sauer told the justices in the emergency appeal.
🏛️ States Push Forward Despite Uncertainty
Despite the legal tug-of-war, state leaders in Massachusetts and New York announced plans to distribute full benefits, regardless of the pending Supreme Court appeal.
Governors Maura Healey (D-MA) and Kathy Hochul (D-NY) said their administrations would ensure that families continue to receive essential food support amid the uncertainty.
Meanwhile, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) said it was working to comply with the court’s directive while awaiting further judicial action. Some states have already begun issuing payments using funds previously allocated before the shutdown, though officials acknowledged the situation remains fluid.
Anti-hunger organizations warned that partial payments or delays in disbursement could create a crisis for millions of families living paycheck to paycheck.
“Every day of delay means empty pantries and dinner tables for American families,” said a spokesperson for Feeding America.
🔥 Political Fallout and Shutdown Implications
The fight over SNAP funding underscores the broader political impasse gripping Washington, as congressional negotiations over a shutdown deal remain stalled amid partisan divisions.
Attorney General Pam Bondi, defending the administration’s stance, accused U.S. District Judge John McConnell Jr. of “judicial activism,” claiming the ruling interferes with delicate political negotiations.
“A single district court in Rhode Island should not be able to seize center stage in the shutdown,” Bondi posted on X (formerly Twitter). “This is judicial activism at its worst.”
Analysts say the administration’s decision to escalate the matter to the Supreme Court marks a high-stakes showdown between executive authority and judicial oversight over the distribution of critical social benefits.
With billions in aid and millions of households hanging in the balance, the case is likely to become a defining moment in the political and legal narrative of the 2025 government shutdown.
======
-- By Jessica Perry
© Copyright 2025 JWT Communications. All rights reserved. This article cannot be republished, rebroadcast, rewritten, or distributed in any form without written permission.
No comments:
Post a Comment