Judges Order Administration to Pay SNAP Benefits
It turns out that mandatory spending is, well, mandatory.
The reporting on this from all the major outlets is frustratingly bad.
AP (“Judges order Trump administration to use emergency reserves for SNAP payments during the shutdown“):
Two federal judges ruled nearly simultaneously on Friday that President Donald Trump’s administration must continue to pay for SNAP, the nation’s biggest food aid program, using emergency reserve funds during the government shutdown.
The judges in Massachusetts and Rhode Island gave the administration leeway on whether to fund the program partially or in full for November. That also brings uncertainty about how things will unfold and will delay payments for many beneficiaries whose cards would normally be recharged early in the month.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture planned to freeze payments to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program starting Nov. 1 because it said it could no longer keep funding it due to the shutdown. The program serves about 1 in 8 Americans and is a major piece of the nation’s social safety net. It costs about $8 billion per month nationally.
[…]
Democratic state attorneys general or governors from 25 states and the District of Columbia challenged the plan to pause the program, contending that the administration has a legal obligation to keep it running in their jurisdictions.
The administration said it wasn’t allowed to use a contingency fund of about $5 billion for the program, which reversed a USDA plan from before the shutdown that said money would be tapped to keep SNAP running. The Democratic officials said not only could that money be used, but that it must be. They also said a separate fund with around $23 billion is available for the cause.
In Providence, Rhode Island, U.S. District Judge John J. McConnell ruled from the bench in a case filed by cities and nonprofits that the program must be funded using at least the contingency funds. He asked for an update on progress by Monday.
Along with ordering the federal government to use emergency reserves to backfill SNAP benefits, McConnell ruled that all previous work requirement waivers must continue to be honored. The USDA during the shutdown has terminated existing waivers that exempted work requirements for older adults, veterans and others.
There were similar elements in the Boston case, where U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani ruled in a written opinion that the USDA has to pay for SNAP, calling the suspension “unlawful.” She ordered the federal government to advise the court by Monday as to whether they will use the emergency reserve funds to provide reduced SNAP benefits for November or fully fund the program “using both contingency funds and additional available funds.
WaPo (“Cities and states leap into breach as SNAP benefits expire“):
Mayors and governors from San Francisco to Virginia will cover millions of dollars in missing federal assistance to feed their most vulnerable residents as the Trump administration battles orders from two federal judges to release backup funds.
The desperate dash to replace money from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, known as SNAP, is unfolding in both red states and blue states as funding for the program that feeds 42 million Americans — most of whom are children, elderly or disabled — runs out today. Four weeks into the government shutdown, the Trump administration has so far declined to use billions in contingency funds to cover the shortfall.
On Friday, a Rhode Island federal judge said the Agriculture Department must distribute the contingency funds “as soon as possible.” Another federal judge in Massachusetts also directed the government to decide by Monday whether it would use the reserves for food aid. Hours after the rulings were issued, President Donald Trump added to the confusion, saying he had asked government attorneys to clarify with the courts how to get SNAP funds out as quickly as possible.
It was not immediately clear how soon that would happen, but no matter the administration’s decision or any additional legal wrangling, analysts say there will still be a delay in the delivery of payments. SNAP wasn’t funded before the government shut down on Oct. 1 and Saturday marked the first monthly payment deadline since then. It can take days to restart the multistep system that sends money to recipients. That means local stopgap measures will remain critical for families struggling to afford food.
Readers could naturally be left wondering: What “emergency reserve funds”? And why are SNAP recipients entitled to them over, say, air traffic controllers who have been forced to work without pay for a month?
The answer is that SNAP—like Social Security retirement and disability payments, Medicare, Medicaid, veterans’ benefits, military and civil service retirements, and many other programs—is mandatory spending under federal law. They do not require Congress to appropriate funds and, therefore, do not stop during a lapse in appropriations.
Congress sets the eligibility requirements for these programs and has the authority to change them. Indeed, Congress could theoretically eliminate them altogether. But, as the law currently exists, those who meet eligibility requirements are entitled to them on an open-ended basis. So, even under “normal” circumstances, with a “normal” budget passed by Congress,* people would be entitled to these benefits even if the demand exceeded the amount appropriated.
*I put “normal” in scare quotes because, in fact, passing full-year budgets has been incredibly rare in recent decades. Indeed, since the passage of the 1974 Congressional Budget Act, it has happened only four times: 1977, 1989, 1995, and 1997.
Does 2 Thess 3:10 demand work requirements for SNAP benefits?
@Gregory Lawrence Brown:
Is there a correct interpretation of anything in the Bible? For 2000 years Christians have searched for and found biblical rationalizations for every sort of horror and atrocity. The Bible is too inconsistent and incoherent to serve as anything but a convenient support for literally anything a ‘Christian’ wants to do.
You’ve got me somewhat confused. There’s appropriations and there’s the source of the appropriated money. Social Security, for example, is permanently appropriated not from the General Fund, but from the special fund(s) set up for that program. Social Security can run out of money despite the permanent appropriation. Medicaid, OTOH, is (IIRC) permanently appropriated from the General Fund, so can’t run out so long as the government has revenue coming in (or can borrow). There are more complicated arrangements as well. A program may have a permanent appropriation from a special fund, but the money in the special fund may depend on a non-permanent appropriation (eg, an annual transfer from the GF to the special fund). In that last one, an emergency fund is not uncommon — the legislature saying, “Here, you’re covered for a month or two if we mess up on getting the transfer authorized, or if the transfer wasn’t big enough.”
Your and the judges’ point is almost certainly valid: the Department is required to spend from the emergency fund to meet its obligations to the states. What happens when the emergency fund is drained, though, is a different problem.
Why yes, I did spend some years in a job that required me to trace through exactly how moneys flowed through the rats nest of government accounts :^)
Trump may appeal, in which case it ain’t mandatory until Dread Justice Roberts says it’s mandatory. Which could drag on for years.
@Michael Reynolds:..Is there a correct interpretation of anything in the Bible?
Asimov’s Guide to the Bible is as good as any.
Meantime at Mar a Lardo, the SNAP crisis doesn’t seem to be affecting the festivities.
@Gregory Lawrence Brown: Thanks for the info re Asimov’s Guide to the Bible Something to browse on cold winter nights to come
@Gregory Lawrence Brown:
@Mr. Prosser:
I either still have or had thar book stashed somewhere. Honestly, I’ve no idea if it survived my last move years ago. I read maybe five pages before I lost interest in it.
My dad gave it to me, brand new, when I was 16 or so, figuring it might get me interested in Judaism, especially the practice of.
I really don’t see how a secular, kind of scholarly book by an atheist was supposed to accomplish that. But then I suppose he only saw “Asimov” and “bible”, and figured somehow “religion”.
@Mr. Prosser:..Asimov’s Guide to the Bible…
You are welcome. I discovered these volumes years ago. I picked up the New Testament locally. I found The Old Testament several years later in a used book store on a visit to San Francisco.
@Gregory Lawrence Brown: I’ll be browsing both volumes on the Internet Archive.