Appeals – Stay – SNAP

Listen to this article

Where a U.S. District Court judge ordered the full payment of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program funds for November, the government’s request for a stay pending appeal should be denied because the government has not made a strong showing that it is likely to succeed on the merits.

“Forty-two million people, one out of every eight Americans, use monthly benefits from the federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) to buy food for themselves and their families. On October 24, 2025, a few weeks into the current government shutdown, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), which administers SNAP funding on behalf of the federal government, announced it would not provide any funds for November SNAP benefits. The plaintiffs in this case — nonprofits, local governments, a union, and a food retailer — sued to require USDA to provide full November benefits using SNAP contingency funds Congress had appropriated for this very purpose, as well as other funds available to USDA. The district court granted a temporary restraining order requiring the government to provide either full SNAP payments by November 3 or partial payments by November 5. The government elected to provide partial benefits. On Thursday, November 6, the district court determined that the government had failed to comply with the order because it did not provide partial payments in a timely manner; it thus ordered the full payment of SNAP funds for November. The government now asks us to stay that order in its entirety pending its appeal. We deny that request. …

“For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the government has failed to meet the stay factors as to the enforcement order, and we deny a stay of that order. …

“We review an order to enforce a judgment for abuse of discretion, and we see no reason not to apply the same standard to the analogous order here. … Nor does the government argue for a different standard in its stay papers. We review the district court’s underlying findings of fact in support of its enforcement order for clear error. … In light of the record and the arguments before us, we conclude that the government has not met its burden to show that the district court abused its discretion in issuing the enforcement order. …

“In sum, the government fails to meaningfully challenge the district court’s determination that it failed to comply with the October 31 TRO. Nor does the government advance any argument that the district court lacked authority to order the full funding of November SNAP benefits as a means of addressing any such noncompliance. The government has thus failed to make a ‘strong showing’ that it is likely to succeed on the merits — that is, to show that the district court abused its discretion in granting the motion to enforce. …

“… Has the government made a strong showing that it is likely to succeed in establishing either (a) that the district court erred in finding noncompliance with the October 31 TRO or (b) that, insofar as it did not err in that regard, it could not order full funding in consequence of that noncompliance?

“As we have explained, the answer is no. …

“Taking the four stay factors together, the government has failed to show it is entitled to the extraordinary relief of a stay. It has not made a strong showing that it is likely to succeed on the merits. Nor does it refute the extensive record evidence of the enormous injury to individuals around the country that a stay would cause. We do not take lightly the government’s concern that money used to fund November SNAP payments will be unavailable for other important nutrition assistance programs. But we cannot conclude that the district court abused its discretion in determining that the overwhelming evidence of widespread harm that a stay would cause right now, by leaving tens of millions of Americans without food as winter approaches, outweighed the potential monetary harm to the government and CNP, months into the future. Thus, we reject the government’s stay request as to the order granting the motion to enforce based on noncompliance with the October 31 TRO.”

Rhode Island State Council of Churches, et al. v. Rollins, et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 01-233-25) (29 pages) (Rikelman, J.) Appealed from the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island. Brett A. Shumate, Eric D. McArthur, Michael S. Raab and Laura E. Myron on brief for the defendants-appellants; Amy R. Romero, Kevin Love Hubbard, DeLuca, Weizenbaum, Barry & Revens, Kristin Bateman, Catherine M.A. Carroll, Jyoti Jasrasaria, Michael J. Torcello, Andrew Liang Bookbinder, Adnan Perwez, Robin F. Thurston, Skye L. Perryman and Democracy Forward Foundation on brief for the plaintiffs-appellees; Jonathan Miller, Jenny Ma, Jean Larsen and Public Rights Project on brief for local governments and local government leaders as amici curiae in support of appellees; Andrea Joy Campbell, Anna Lumelsky, Michelle Pascucci, Vanessa Arslanian, Liza Hirsch, Cassandra Thomson, Rauvin Johl, Peter Walkingshaw, Jak Kundl, Katherine Dirks, Kristin K. Mayes, Rob Bonta, Philip J. Weiser, William Tong, Kathleen Jennings, Brian L. Schwalb, Anne E. Lopez, Kwame Raoul, Laura Kelly, Andy Beshear, Aaron M. Frey, Anthony G. Brown, Dana Nessel, Keith Ellison, Aaron D. Ford, Matthew J. Platkin, Raúl Torrez, Letitia James, Jeff Jackson, Dan Rayfield, Josh Shapiro, Peter F. Neronha, Charity R. Clark, Nicholas W. Brown and Joshua L. Kaul on brief for Massachusetts, et al., as amici curiae in support of appellees; Elizabeth B. Deutsch, Laurel A. Raymond, Brian Hauck, Jenner & Block, Julia Spiegel, Emily Kirby, Allegra Chapman, Carlos Guevara, Inbar Pe’er and Governors Action Alliance on brief for bipartisan former governors as amici curiae in support of appellees (Docket No. 25-2089) (Nov. 9, 2025).

Click here to read the full text of the opinion.