A coalition of churches across Rhode Island is urging a federal judge to enforce a temporary restraining order (TRO) against the Trump administration. This TRO mandates that the federal government continue distributing Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits to American families.

The legal battle began when the plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration in response to a series of memos from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). These memos, citing the ongoing government shutdown, halted the release of November SNAP benefits. However, the plaintiffs argue that the USDA’s claims of insufficient funds are unfounded, pointing to $3 billion in congressionally approved SNAP contingency funds that should cover the benefits.

The case has moved quickly through the courts.

On Friday, just a day after the lawsuit was initiated, U.S. District Judge John James McConnell Jr., an appointee of former President Barack Obama, issued the TRO. In a bench ruling, he ordered the USDA to release the contingency funds and report back to the court by noon on Monday, November 3, 2025, about the status of the distribution.

Despite this order, the plaintiffs claim that the government has not adhered to the ruling.

On Monday, the government filed a four-page status report stating that it is making every effort to comply with the court’s directive, despite the challenges posed by the tight timeline and the ongoing government shutdown.

To that end, in an accompanying eight-page declaration, an official with the USDA clarified SNAP contingency funds would “be obligated to cover 50% of eligible households’ current allotments.”

On Tuesday, in a five-page motion to enforce the TRO and concomitant 26-page memorandum in support, the plaintiffs, led by the Rhode Island State Council of Churches, say the government’s “failure to provide full benefits” is a violation of the court’s order.

“Defendants’ choice to withhold full SNAP payments is not consistent with this Order,” the motion reads. “Because it is now clear that due to Defendants’ course of conduct, and by their own admission, undertaking a partial payment plan at this point cannot meet the Court’s directives or adequately remedy the harm Plaintiffs are suffering, the Court should grant Plaintiffs’ motion to enforce and should temporarily enjoin and compel Defendants to release the withheld funding, in its entirety, for November SNAP benefits.”

In a later-issued seven-page formal TRO, McConnell gave the Trump administration two options for November SNAP benefits.

The first option was to pay out this month’s allotments in full. The second option was to issue “partial payments” while working to “expeditiously resolve the administrative and clerical burdens” the USDA previously cited as a barrier for releasing reduced benefits.

The plaintiffs say the Trump administration is choosing a different, not-allowed, third choice for what might be considered November SNAP benefits in name only for millions of Americans.

“Defendants’ action reflects neither option,” the Tuesday memo reads. “Defendants’ status report and accompanying declaration, filed yesterday, make clear that they have failed to expeditiously resolve the burdens associated with partial SNAP payments—in fact, Defendants indicate that, as a result of their choice, it may take up to several months for partial benefits to be provided.”

And, all indications are that the government has no intent on complying with the court’s order — at least in terms of timelines.

Also on Tuesday, President Donald Trump posted on Truth Social, saying SNAP benefits “will be given only when the Radical Left Democrats open up government, which they can easily do, and not before!”

While the 45th and 47th president’s words were not cited in either Thursday filing submitted by the plaintiffs, the post will likely be cited by either the plaintiffs or the judge going forward.

The plaintiffs say the government’s flouting of the order comes even as the government’s food-related accounts are flush with cash.

In the court’s order, McConnell said full November payments could also be made by tapping into Child Nutrition Program funds. The government, in turn, said it would not subject that program to “an unprecedented and significant shortfall.”

The plaintiffs rubbished that math, at length:

[E]ven if the current lapse in appropriations continued, funding for child nutrition programs would not in fact face any shortfall now—or even anytime soon. There is currently approximately $23.35 billion available in the child nutrition account. In the government’s own telling, child nutrition programs require just over $3 billion per month (or approximately $36.27 billion total this fiscal year). If the government transferred the $4 billion necessary to make full November SNAP payments, $19.35 billion would remain—enough to fully fund child nutrition through May and beyond, even if the current lapse in appropriations lasted that long. There is no realistic risk of any child going hungry as a result of such transfer—but a very real and immediate risk of 16 million children not getting the sustenance they need if USDA does not fully fund November SNAP benefits.

“Because of Defendants’ decision to withhold full funds for November SNAP benefits, Plaintiffs’ members and constituents, and millions of other Americans, will continue to go hungry as their benefits are delayed and reduced,” the memo goes on.

In the alternative of an enforcement order, the plaintiffs are seeking a second TRO that would “compel” the government “to release funding, in its entirety, for November SNAP benefits.”