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.

U.S. District Judge John McConnell’s TRO came in a federal case brought in Rhode Island, and, 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.