First Circuit Court Unanimously Rules Trump Administration Must Pay Full SNAP Benefits, Citing 'Immense Harm' to 40 Million Recipients

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit unanimously ruled that the Trump administration must be forced to pay full SNAP food benefits for November, declining to block U.S. District Judge John McConnell’s order requiring the administration to use available federal funds to cover the $4 billion shortfall. Judge Julie Rikelman’s opinion stated that allowing partial SNAP payments would cause “immense harm nationwide for the more than 40 million people in the program,” directly rebuking the administration’s claim that complying with the lower court order would harm the government more than food insecurity would harm tens of millions of Americans.

The appeals court found that “the government sat on its hands for nearly a month, unprepared to make partial payments, while people who rely on SNAP received no benefits a week into November and counting.” This pointed language characterized the Trump administration’s approach as deliberate administrative failure, using the government shutdown—itself a political choice—as justification for withholding food assistance despite having access to $23.35 billion in Section 32 child nutrition funds derived from tariff revenue. The unanimous panel ruling indicated that even conservative appellate judges found the administration’s position—that it faced greater harm from feeding hungry Americans than those Americans faced from food insecurity—legally and morally untenable.

The Trump administration immediately informed the Supreme Court on Monday morning that it would continue seeking a stay of Judge McConnell’s order, escalating the legal battle despite the unanimous appellate rebuke. The administration’s appeal framed the dispute as judicial overreach into executive spending discretion, arguing that courts could not compel the use of Section 32 funds for SNAP benefits. This position effectively claimed that the political decision to shut down the government trumped statutory requirements to provide nutrition assistance to 40 million Americans, including millions of children, elderly, and disabled individuals who depend on SNAP for basic food security. The legal strategy revealed the administration’s willingness to use food insecurity as a pressure tactic in budget negotiations, even when alternative federal funds were available to prevent hunger.