Michael Bilow of Motif attended the 1:00pm court hearing and is reporting based on his personal observations.
In a case with national significance and effect, Judge John J. McConnell Jr of the US District Court in Providence today granted a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) requiring the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) to make Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) (formerly “food stamp”) payments due Nov 1 to about 42 million recipients. Citing the failure of Congress to pass financial authorization for the fiscal year beginning Oct 1, 2025, the government issued notices on Oct 24 that SNAP payments would be interrupted due to insufficient funds.
The expected halt in SNAP payments set off widespread panic among state and local governments, as well as non-profit organizations such as community food banks and churches who would have to take up the slack to feed people. RI Governor Daniel McKee declared a state of emergency and, with the RI Foundation, committed millions of dollars to address the problem.
A similar case brought by 25 states and the District of Columbia in the US District Court for Massachusetts emerged from a hearing at 11:00am with the motion for emergency relief remaining under advisement without resolution.
Judge McConnell found in favor of the plaintiffs on both prongs of their case. First, they argued that the law commanded the payment of SNAP benefits as an entitlement and the refusal to use available contingency funds was arbitrary and capricious. For example, holding the congressionally-authorized “emergency reserve” for a possible future emergency such as hurricane relief did not justify failing to use it for an actual present emergency such as the failure of Congress to authorize funding specifically. Second, they argued that although the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” (HR. 1) passed by Congress in a sharply partisan division prohibited new waivers for work requirements in high-unemployment areas, it did not authorize the early cancellation of previously granted waivers.
The judge addressed the requirements needed to grant equitable relief to the plaintiffs: likelihood of success of the case on the merits and risk of irreparable harm.
“On the issue of likelihood of success. It is very clear to the Court, having put the issue through a very high standard, that the October 24 letter ordering the stop of SNAP funds violates the Administrative Procedure Act, both in terms of it being contrary to law as well as it being arbitrary and capricious,” Judge McConnell said, ruling from the bench. “SNAP is, to use a colloquial term, an ‘entitlement’ where those benefits are guaranteed. Obviously, to the extent there are appropriated funds, there is no doubt that the $6 billion approximately contingency funds are appropriated funds that are without a doubt necessary to carry out the program’s operation.… There could be no greater necessity than the prohibition across the board of funds for the program’s operations. In addition, SNAP benefits have never, until now, been terminated, and the United States has, in fact, admitted that the contingency funds are appropriately used during a shutdown, and that occurred in 2019.”
“There is no doubt, and it is beyond argument, that irreparable harm will begin to occur, if it hasn’t already occurred, in the terror it has caused some people about the availability of funding for food for their family,” Judge McConnell said, ruling from the bench. “It’s clear that, when compared to the millions of people that will go without funds for food, versus the agency’s desire not to use contingency funds in case there’s a hurricane need, the balances of those equities clearly goes on the side of ensuring that people are fed.”
The judge was even more scathing in criticizing the government cancellation of work waivers. “The failure to honor existing waivers is contrary to law. The waivers have been granted. They’re time limited. The time in many of them has not yet expired. The HR. 1 bill that was passed does not give the agency authority to retroactively apply new waiver requirements, it does not give the agency the power to take back existing and relied upon waivers that have been given to certain states. That certainly is arbitrary and capricious, because there is no logical or rational reason why that was done, and it’s particularly egregious, as the Court has pointed out in the past, when you consider the reliance on it, the balance of the equities again balance out and the public interest to requiring that waivers that have been granted be honored for their duration,” Judge McConnell said from the bench.
The lawsuit before Judge McConnell in Providence (Rhode Island State Council of Churches v. Rollins) was brought by RI non-profits the State Council of Churches; the United Way of Rhode Island; Amos House in Providence; the Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Community Center in Newport; the East Bay Community Action Program (EBCAP); Federal Hill House; The Milagros Project in Woonsocket; and the RI cities of Providence, Pawtucket, and Central Falls. National co-plaintiffs are the National Council of Nonprofits; Service Employees International Union (SEIU) AFL-CIO; Main Street Alliance; and the New York Legal Assistance Group (NYLAG). Additional plaintiffs include the cities of Albuquerque, New Mexico; Baltimore, Maryland; Columbus, Ohio; Durham, North Carolina; and New Haven, Connecticut.