“The court will not hesitate to enforce compliance by all means available”

Washington – It is one of those decisions that will go down in the history of American separation of powers. John J. McConnell Jr., Chief Federal Judge of the U.S. District Court for the State of Rhode Island, has ordered the Trump administration, in a sharply worded ruling, to pay out all outstanding food stamp benefits (SNAP) in full by Friday at the latest. And he made it unmistakably clear that in the event of further defiance he would show no restraint. “If the order is not followed, the court will not hesitate to enforce compliance by all means available,” McConnell declared.

The confrontation between the judiciary and the executive branch arose from a refusal by the Department of Agriculture (USDA) to pay the monthly support benefits to millions of Americans. Officially, the agency justified this by citing a lack of funds due to the government shutdown. But McConnell found that this justification was not only inadequate but unlawful. “The defendants failed to consider the practical consequences associated with their decision to only partially fund SNAP. They knew that this would lead to significant delays in disbursement, and they failed to consider the harm caused to people who depend on these benefits.”

The judge reminded the government that it was legally obligated to use congressionally approved reserves to keep the program running. “There is no doubt that the congressionally approved contingency funds must be used now – precisely because of the government shutdown. In fact, the president during his first term issued guidance stating that these reserves may be used if SNAP funds lapse due to a shutdown.”

The court reacted particularly sharply to a post that Donald Trump published on his platform Truth Social on November 4. In it, the president wrote: “SNAP benefits, which increased during the disastrous term of the crooked Joe Biden by billions and billions (many fold!), will be paid only when the radical left Democrats reopen the government – which they can easily do – and not before!” For McConnell, this was not a political opinion but an admission of deliberate defiance. “The president himself publicly declared that SNAP payments will only be made when Congress reopens the government. This statement is an admission of intent not to comply with the court order.” The judge literally described the post as “an admission of intent to defy the court order.”

“SNAP is a huge scam. Cancel it.”

Thus, Trump’s statement was not merely a side remark but the evidentiary basis for the judicial ruling. The Department of Agriculture was ordered, under threat of coercive measures, to pay all benefits in full by Friday. McConnell left no doubt that the court has extensive means to enforce obedience.

The addressee of possible sanctions is the acting Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins, who is named as a defendant in her official capacity. Should she or her agency fail to comply with the order, severe penalties may follow. Under U.S. federal law (§ 401 Title 18 U.S.C. and Rule 70 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure), the court may impose daily increasing fines until the order is fully implemented. McConnell could also order substitute enforcement – for example, by a U.S. Marshal or an independent administrator who would directly carry out the payments. In particularly serious cases, personal liability or coercive detention would also be conceivable if a named individual – such as Rollins – willfully disobeyed the order.

The judge made it clear that the defiance of a court order is not a political act but an open violation of the rule of law. He spoke of “a clear case of civil contempt,” which, if the refusal continues, could lead to proceedings for civil contempt of court – with all the ensuing consequences. His words were unusually sharp for a federal judge: “Without SNAP funding for the month of November, 16 million children are immediately at risk of hunger. Such a thing must never happen in the United States of America. In truth, it is to be assumed that SNAP recipients are hungry right now as we sit here.”

The decision in case 1:25-cv-00569-JJM-AEM stands as a symbol of the growing conflict between the federal courts and the Trump administration on issues of budget and social policy. The court found that the conduct of the executive branch violated not only previous directives but also the fundamental duty to prevent harm to the public.