Supreme Court says US food stamp funding can be temporarily halted – BBC

Report on US Food Assistance Program Funding and its Implications for Sustainable Development Goals

Executive Summary

A recent emergency order by the U.S. Supreme Court has permitted the temporary withholding of federal funding for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). This action, stemming from a federal government shutdown, directly impacts millions of low-income Americans and presents a significant challenge to the nation’s progress toward several key Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly those concerning hunger, poverty, and institutional stability.

Direct Challenge to SDG 2: Zero Hunger

The suspension of SNAP funding poses an immediate and severe threat to the achievement of SDG 2, which aims to end hunger, achieve food security, and improve nutrition.

• The SNAP program is a primary mechanism for ensuring food security for 42 million Americans.
• A judicial assessment warned that without the aid, “16 million children are immediately at risk of going hungry.”
• The Supreme Court’s ruling allows for $4 billion to be temporarily withheld, disrupting a program that costs nearly $9 billion per month to sustain.
• This interruption directly undermines the goal of ensuring access for all people, in particular the poor and people in vulnerable situations, to safe, nutritious, and sufficient food all year round.

Ramifications for Interconnected SDGs

The funding crisis extends beyond food security, impacting a range of interconnected development goals.

1. SDG 1 (No Poverty): SNAP is a critical social protection system. Withholding benefits, which amount to approximately $6 per day per recipient, weakens the economic resilience of low-income households and obstructs efforts to eradicate poverty in all its forms.
2. SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being): Food insecurity is intrinsically linked to poor health outcomes. A lack of consistent access to nutrition jeopardizes the health and well-being of millions, contravening the objectives of SDG 3.
3. SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities): As SNAP serves the most vulnerable populations, the disruption of benefits disproportionately affects these groups, thereby widening socio-economic inequalities within the country.

Institutional Challenges and SDG 16: Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions

The situation highlights significant challenges related to the efficacy and accountability of public institutions, a core component of SDG 16.

• The legal conflict, which escalated from a lower court to the Supreme Court, underscores institutional friction and the impact of political deadlocks on essential public services.
• The federal government shutdown, which precipitated the crisis, points to a failure in effective governance and the inability of institutions to ensure continuous operation and funding.
• The administrative stay issued by Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson freezes a lower court’s ruling, demonstrating the complex judicial oversight involved in executive branch actions.
• While some state governments have utilized their own reserves to maintain payments, this is not a sustainable or nationally consistent solution, revealing weaknesses in the federal system’s ability to protect vulnerable citizens during a shutdown.

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

The article discusses issues that are directly connected to several Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The primary focus on food benefits for low-income individuals brings Goals 1 and 2 to the forefront, while the context of a government shutdown and legal battles over social protection policies also connects to Goals 10 and 16.

• SDG 1: No Poverty

  The article addresses SDG 1 by focusing on a social protection program, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (Snap), designed for “millions of low-income Americans.” The potential withholding of these funds directly impacts the financial stability and well-being of the poor and vulnerable, which is a core concern of SDG 1.

• SDG 2: Zero Hunger

  This is the most prominent SDG in the article. The entire issue revolves around “food benefits” and the risk of food insecurity. The article explicitly states that without the aid, “16 million children are immediately at risk of going hungry,” which directly aligns with the goal of ending hunger and ensuring access to food.

• SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

  The Snap program targets a specific vulnerable group: low-income individuals. The article notes that “42 million Americans – around one in eight” rely on this program. The political and legal struggle over this funding highlights the vulnerability of this group and how institutional failures can exacerbate economic inequalities.

• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

  The article details a failure of government institutions, described as the “longest government shutdown in US history.” The legal battle, involving a lower court, the Supreme Court, and the Trump administration, over the provision of essential services demonstrates a strain on the effectiveness and accountability of these institutions, which is a key aspect of SDG 16.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

Based on the issues discussed, several specific SDG targets can be identified:

1. Target 1.3: Implement nationally appropriate social protection systems and measures for all… and achieve substantial coverage of the poor and the vulnerable.

   The article is centered on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (Snap), which is a key social protection system in the US. The debate over withholding its funding is a direct challenge to the implementation and reliability of this system for the “millions of low-income Americans” it is designed to protect.

2. 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.

   This target is directly relevant as the Snap program is the primary mechanism for ensuring food access for its recipients. The article’s warning that “16 million children are immediately at risk of going hungry” underscores the program’s critical role in meeting this target for a significant portion of the population.

3. Target 10.4: Adopt policies, especially fiscal, wage and social protection policies, and progressively achieve greater equality.

   Snap is a social protection policy. The article describes a high-level conflict over the fiscal commitment to this policy during a government shutdown. The decision to potentially withhold “$4bn” in funding is a direct action related to fiscal and social protection policies that affects economic equality.

4. Target 16.6: Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels.

   The context of the “longest government shutdown in US history” and the ensuing legal chaos over funding an essential program like Snap points to a breakdown in the effectiveness of government institutions. The need for court orders to compel the administration to “dip into contingency funds” highlights a lack of accountability and standard operational effectiveness.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

Yes, the article contains several quantitative and qualitative data points that can serve as indicators to measure the status of these targets.

• Indicators for Target 1.3 (Social Protection Coverage):

  The article provides direct numbers on the coverage of the Snap social protection system. The statement that the program is “issued by 42 million Americans – around one in eight” serves as a direct indicator of the proportion of the population covered by this specific system.

• Indicators for Target 2.1 (Access to Food/Hunger):

  Several indicators are mentioned. The number of children at risk, “16 million children are immediately at risk of going hungry,” is a stark indicator of potential food insecurity. The value of the aid, “around $6 per day to recipients,” is a quantitative measure of the level of support provided to ensure food access. The total monthly cost of the program, “almost $9bn,” indicates the scale of the intervention to combat hunger.

• Indicators for Target 10.4 (Social Protection Policies):

  The amount of funding in dispute, “$4bn (£3.04bn),” is a clear financial indicator related to the implementation of social protection policy. This figure represents a significant portion of the program’s monthly budget and its withholding is a measure of the policy’s disruption.

• Indicators for Target 16.6 (Institutional Effectiveness):

  The duration of the institutional failure is explicitly mentioned: “the longest government shutdown in US history” and “more than a month.” This timeframe serves as a clear indicator of the severity of the institutional breakdown.

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: bbc.com