With Hours to Spare, Federal Judges Step in to Stop Trump from Cutting Off Food Stamps for 42 Million Americans

The administration’s claim that it was reserving the $5 billion for other emergencies was a discretionary choice. The judges’ rulings are a powerful check on that discretion, a signal from the judiciary that it will not allow the executive branch to inflict such a massive and “devastating” humanitarian crisis when a clear, legal alternative exists.

How Did a Shutdown Become a Weapon?

This is not the first time SNAP benefits have been threatened in a shutdown, but it marks the first time in the program’s 60-year history that it has ever fully lapsed. For decades, the program was seen as a “third rail,” too vital to be cut.

The Antideficiency Act, a post-Civil War law, is what forces most of the government to close. But a shutdown itself is a modern political invention, a failure of Congress to execute its most basic Article I duty: the power of the purse. The courts are now being forced to clean up the mess created by the legislature’s dysfunction and the executive’s political gamesmanship.

What Happens Now?

The judges’ orders are a temporary, emergency fix, not a permanent solution. Judge Talwani has ordered the government to report back by Monday on how it plans to keep the program funded, whether in full or in part.

The Department of Justice has not yet said if it will appeal these rulings. This legal battle is far from over, but for now, two federal judges have stepped in to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe, delivering a powerful rebuke to the administration’s political strategy.