Judges order Trump administration to use emergency reserves for SNAP payments during the shutdown – AP News

Judicial Intervention Upholds Food Security and Poverty Alleviation Mandates

Court Rulings and Alignment with SDG 2: Zero Hunger

A report on recent federal court rulings indicates a significant affirmation of national food security objectives, directly aligning with Sustainable Development Goal 2 (Zero Hunger). Two federal judges in Massachusetts and Rhode Island have mandated that the U.S. government must continue funding the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) by utilizing emergency reserve funds. This action prevents the suspension of a critical food aid program that serves approximately one in eight Americans and is essential for combating hunger and ensuring access to food.

• A U.S. District Judge in Massachusetts and another in Rhode Island ruled that the administration’s planned suspension of SNAP payments was unlawful.
• The administration was ordered to utilize a contingency fund of approximately $5 billion, and potentially other available funds, to continue the program.
• The rulings affirm the government’s legal obligation to provide food assistance, a cornerstone of national food security efforts and a direct mechanism for achieving SDG 2.

Implications for SDG 1: No Poverty and SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

The continuation of SNAP, a program costing approximately $8 billion per month, is vital for achieving SDG 1 (No Poverty) and SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities). As a primary social safety net, the program’s uninterrupted operation is crucial for the economic stability of its 41 million beneficiaries, nearly two-thirds of whom are in families with children.

1. The program provides essential support to low-income households, including families, seniors, and veterans, preventing them from falling deeper into poverty.
2. By ensuring access to basic nutrition, SNAP helps mitigate economic disparities and supports the financial stability of vulnerable communities, a key target of SDG 10.
3. The court’s decision protects millions from having to choose between purchasing food and meeting other essential expenses, thereby reducing immediate financial hardship and inequality.

Upholding SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

The legal challenges, brought forth by 25 states and the District of Columbia, and the subsequent judicial rulings exemplify the principles of SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions). The judiciary acted as an essential check on executive power, interpreting the law to mandate the use of available contingency funds for SNAP. This reinforces the role of strong, independent institutions in upholding legal frameworks and social obligations to citizens, ensuring that governance serves all members of society, particularly the most vulnerable.

Ongoing Challenges to Health, Well-being, and Program Stability (SDG 3)

Despite the favorable rulings, significant challenges remain that impact SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being). The uncertainty surrounding the level of funding and the timing of payments creates stress and potential health risks for beneficiaries. Access to sufficient, nutritious food is a fundamental determinant of health, and disruptions to this access can have severe consequences.

• The courts granted the administration leeway on whether to fund the program partially or in full for November, creating uncertainty about the level of support families will receive.
• Inevitable delays in benefit distribution will disrupt access to food for millions whose benefits are typically issued early in the month.
• The potential for reduced benefits threatens the nutritional intake and overall health of recipients, undermining the goal of ensuring healthy lives and promoting well-being for all.

SDGs Addressed in the Article

SDG 1: No Poverty

• The article focuses on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), which is described as a “major piece of the nation’s social safety net.” This program is designed to assist low-income individuals and families. The text explicitly mentions the eligibility criteria: “To qualify for SNAP in 2025, a family of four’s net income after certain expenses can’t exceed the federal poverty line.” This directly connects the program and the issues discussed to the goal of eradicating poverty.

SDG 2: Zero Hunger

• The central theme of the article is the potential halt of funding for the “nation’s biggest food aid program.” The purpose of SNAP is to ensure people have access to food. The article highlights the consequences of cutting off benefits, stating that it “would force people to choose between buying groceries and paying other bills” and that the administration is being accused of “choosing not to feed Americans in need.” This directly relates to the goal of ending hunger and ensuring food security.

SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

• The article points out that SNAP serves vulnerable and marginalized groups. It states that the program assists “41 million people, nearly two-thirds of whom were families with children,” and also mentions “older adults, veterans and others.” The legal battle to continue the program is an effort to prevent a policy decision that would disproportionately harm these low-income and vulnerable populations, thereby addressing the goal of reducing inequalities.

SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

• The article is fundamentally about the functioning of governmental and judicial institutions. It describes a legal conflict where “Two federal judges ruled” against the administration’s plan to freeze SNAP payments. State attorneys general challenged the administration, and the judiciary stepped in to interpret the law and enforce legal obligations. This demonstrates the role of strong institutions and the rule of law in upholding social protection systems and ensuring justice for citizens. The article also mentions a legislative failure (“A push this week to continue SNAP funding… failed in Congress”), highlighting the interplay and challenges within national institutions.

Specific SDG Targets Identified

Targets under SDG 1 (No Poverty)

1. Target 1.3: Implement nationally appropriate social protection systems and measures for all, including floors, and by 2030 achieve substantial coverage of the poor and the vulnerable.
   • The article discusses SNAP as a critical “social safety net” and a large-scale social protection system in the U.S. The debate over its funding is a direct reflection of the implementation and maintenance of this system, which serves “about 1 in 8 Americans,” aiming for substantial coverage of the poor.

Targets under SDG 2 (Zero Hunger)

1. Target 2.1: By 2030, end hunger and ensure access by all people, in particular the poor and people in vulnerable situations… to safe, nutritious and sufficient food all year round.
   • The court rulings forcing the administration to continue funding SNAP are aimed at ensuring millions of vulnerable people maintain access to food. The article quotes a beneficiary who relies on the program for her family’s groceries, illustrating the program’s direct link to ensuring access to sufficient food.

Targets under SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions)

1. Target 16.3: Promote the rule of law at the national… level and ensure equal access to justice for all.
   • The legal challenge by 25 states and the subsequent rulings by federal judges exemplify the promotion of the rule of law. The courts are used as a mechanism to ensure the administration adheres to its legal obligations regarding the SNAP program, providing a form of justice for the millions who depend on it.
2. Target 16.6: Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels.
   • The article showcases the system of checks and balances between the executive and judicial branches of government. The court’s order for the federal government to “advise the court by Monday” on its funding plan is a direct measure of accountability imposed on an executive institution.

Indicators for Measuring Progress

Indicators Mentioned or Implied

1. Indicator 1.3.1: Proportion of population covered by social protection floors/systems…
   • The article provides specific data points that can be used for this indicator. It states that SNAP “serves about 1 in 8 Americans” and “provided assistance to 41 million people” in the previous year, with “nearly two-thirds of whom were families with children.” These figures directly measure the coverage of this social protection system.
2. Indicator 2.1.2: Prevalence of moderate or severe food insecurity in the population…
   • While the article does not provide a direct statistical measure of food insecurity, it strongly implies the risk of it. The statement that halting aid would “force people to choose between buying groceries and paying other bills” and the testimony of a mother whose “$994 a month benefit doesn’t buy a full month’s groceries” are qualitative descriptions of food insecurity. The 41 million beneficiaries represent the population whose food security is at immediate risk, serving as a proxy indicator.

Summary of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: apnews.com