The U.S. Department of Justice filed an emergency motion on November 7, asking the First Circuit Court of Appeals to stay a district court order that requires the Department of Agriculture to provide full November benefits to Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program recipients by transferring billions of dollars from child nutrition programs.
The USDA initially suspended November SNAP benefits for approximately 42 million Americans, prompting a coalition of municipalities, nonprofits, and advocacy groups to file suit in Rhode Island federal court on October 24.
A Rhode Island district judge issued a temporary restraining order on October 31, initially requiring USDA to deplete the $5.25 billion SNAP contingency reserve fund. The agency complied, authorizing partial benefits for November. However, on November 6, the court went further, ordering USDA to cover the remaining shortfall—approximately $4 billion—by transferring money appropriated under Section 32 of the Agricultural Adjustment Act Amendment of 1935.
Section 32 establishes a permanent appropriation funded by 30 percent of customs receipts, with the vast majority designated for Child Nutrition Programs that serve approximately 29 million children daily through school lunch and breakfast programs.
In its emergency motion, the Justice Department argues the district court’s order “makes a mockery of the separation of powers,” asserting that courts hold neither the power to appropriate nor to spend federal funds. The government contends that SNAP benefits are explicitly subject to available appropriations under 7 U.S.C. § 2027(b), which directs the Secretary to limit allotments “to an amount not in excess of the appropriation for such fiscal year”.
USDA officials explained their decision not to transfer funds from Child Nutrition Programs was based on several factors: the programs were specifically appropriated by Congress for their intended purpose; transferring $4 billion would represent an “unprecedented and significant shortfall” in programs with an estimated annual budget of $13.2 billion; and there is no guarantee Congress would replenish the depleted funds.
The government’s appeal raises two primary legal arguments. First, it contends that decisions about transferring funds between programs fall under agency discretion committed to the executive branch and are not subject to judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act. Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Lincoln v. Vigil, the Justice Department argues that funding allocations require “a complicated balancing of a number of factors which are peculiarly within [the agency’s] expertise”.
Second, even if such decisions are reviewable, the government argues USDA’s choice was not arbitrary or capricious. The agency reasonably concluded that depleting one safety-net program to support another without sufficient appropriations, particularly when there is no assurance of restoration, represents sound judgment.
The district court rejected these arguments, finding it arbitrary and capricious for USDA to decline the transfer. The judge also pointed to public statements by President Trump warning that SNAP benefits would not resume until Congress passes appropriations, viewing this as evidence of bad faith.
The lawsuit was filed by a coalition including the Rhode Island State Council of Churches, National Council of Nonprofits, Service Employees International Union, Main Street Alliance, and several cities including Central Falls, Pawtucket, Providence, Albuquerque, Baltimore, Columbus, Durham, and New Haven, along with various nonprofit service organizations.
The district court set an urgent deadline, ordering full payment by Friday, November 7. The Justice Department filed its emergency motion the same day, requesting either an immediate stay or at minimum an administrative stay by 4 p.m. to prevent what it characterizes as irreparable harm to Child Nutrition Programs.
