R.I. federal judge orders USDA to use emergency funds for food stamp benefits

This just in from Boston

McConnell’s ruling came almost simultaneously with a similar outcome in a case in Massachusetts’ federal court. Near the end of the approximately hourlong virtual hearing, McConnell interrupted his own comments to remark that Judge Indira Talwani had just ruled on a case brought earlier this week by a coalition of states’ attorneys general, which also sought to reinstate SNAP funding, which is set to expire Saturday, Nov. 1, as it has not been allocated any emergency funding during the shutdown.  

Trump administration blocked from cutting off SNAP benefits as two judges issue orders

“I’m sure you’re all anxious to read Judge Talwani’s opinion,” McConnell said before he granted his own temporary restraining order on the government agency’s actions.

Like McConnell, Talwani ruled that the agency must submit by Monday whether it “will authorize at least reduced SNAP benefits for November.” If so, the USDA also needs to submit a timeline for its plan, and whether the SNAP money will come from contingency funds or other sources.  

McConnell said he was already familiar with the Massachusetts case assigned to Talwani. So, at the beginning of the hearing, he first gave the floor to Counsel to the Assistant Attorney General Tyler Becker, who represented the feds. A representative for the USDA attended part of the hearing but did not speak during her time on camera.

Becker argued for the nonexistence of SNAP without funding. That which is unfunded cannot exist, Becker proposed, because SNAP’s funding is what constitutes the program — therefore, a nonexistent program cannot receive contingency funding. 

“The government may not provide those benefits because there is not a funding allocation, an appropriation for those benefits, as a result of the current shutdown in the government,” Becker said. “It would be an extreme remedy at this point to force SNAP, the government, to rely on a contingency fund.”

“Those are to maintain program operations when there is a program,” Becker said. “There is no program.”

The argument did not persuade McConnell, who pointed out that a government shutdown does not automatically make a program defunct. This narrative has played out before during previous shutdowns, the judge recounted, and to different results.   

“SNAP benefits have never, until now, been terminated,” McConnell said. “The United States has, in fact, admitted that the contingency funds are appropriately used during a shutdown, and that occurred in 2019.”

Like the vast majority of cases involving President Donald Trump’s funding mandates, there was much talk of the “arbitrary and capricious” from both parties — the legal labels frequently invoked in anti-Trump litigation to indicate the administration’s non-specfiic or wide-ranging rationale for its funding directives. The plaintiffs’ legal team further argued that the federal government, in rejecting the use of contingency funding to keep SNAP afloat, ignored the very purpose for which those contingency funds had been created. 

Michael Torcello, a senior staff attorney with Democracy Forward, said the statute which authorizes SNAP includes “mandatory language that Congress uses when it intends to create a duty.”

“Congress foresaw that there might be an emergency, and it designated specific funds to be used in that situation,” Torcello said. “So I think that completely undermines the government’s position that there’s no funds at all that we could use. I think Congress very, very clearly and very directly contemplated that when there is a contingency or an emergency, ‘Here’s $6 billion that is to be used for this vital program.’” 

USDA’s decision not to use the contingency money, Becker argued, was within the range of discretion allowed the agency, especially since the current lack of funding is not an emergency proper.

“This shutdown is not an emergency,” Becker said. “This crisis, to the extent it is a crisis or an emergency at all, has been created by Congress.”

“It is something that could be, by Congress reopening the government tomorrow, could be resolved,” Becker added. “There is no mandate that the SNAP program actually be funded on Nov.1. …The government cannot just add funding when no program exists.”

Torcello offered a retort later in the hearing: “Counsel’s contention that the shutdown is not an emergency, although I think counsel also said that this is a crisis. So their position is a bit inconsistent on this.”

But Becker urged the court to leave the matter to Congress, as only an appropriation can restart SNAP issuance. Forcing USDA to issue November benefits with contingency or Section 32 money would misallocate carryover balances and “actually cause immense harm to the SNAP system itself.” The use of Section 32 money could also affect WIC’s shutdown funding. 

“I don’t think we’re even transferring into WIC for next month at this point, because there’s just a lot of considerations that go into this,” Becker said.

Focus on food driving cities’ resources

The plaintiffs’ legal team, meanwhile, was concerned about the harm that would come from the cessation of SNAP benefits. Approximately a quarter of the population of Central Falls receives SNAP benefits, said Democracy Forward Senior Counsel Jyoti Jasrasaria. She mentioned a food drive being held Saturday to help mitigate the shutdown’s effect on food stamps.  

“Doing that is requiring [the city] to divert resources and staff directly from the police department, the Department of Public Works and the office of constituent services, and it will continue to do things like that,” Jasrasaria said.  

Another portion of the plaintiffs’ argument involved USDA’s move to end existing work-requirement waivers for able-bodied adults without dependents. Congress’ overhaul of SNAP eligibility in July still did not OK retroactive cancellation, the attorneys argued, but that’s what an Oct. 3 memo by USDA tried to do.  

The Justice Department countered that no irreparable harm would come from the new waiver rules, because no recipients would see a change in benefits until March 1, 2026.

“The failure to honor existing waivers is contrary to law,” McConnell ruled from the bench. His ruling orders USDA to keep those waivers in place through their stated end dates while the case proceeds.

Attorney Kevin Love Hubbard appeared on behalf of DeLuca, Weizenbaum, Barry & Revens — a stark change from July, when Hubbard still worked in  the U.S. Department of Justice’s Civil Division and defended the feds in court. Whether benefits expire in March or not does not make the time in-between any less important, Hubbard argued, as the time spent finding a job to satisfy the lack of a waiver cannot be returned. 

“Even if people are able to find jobs by March,” Hubbard said. “It eliminates their ability to use that time later on.”

“Time is our enemy here on so many levels,” McConnell said at one point.

Earlier in the hearing, he gave a “shoutout” to the courthouse staff who had stayed on with him to work on the case, which was filed less than a day before the hearing began.  

“I have two very, very tired law clerks, so I just want to publicly thank them,” McConnell said.