In a significant legal defeat for the Trump administration, a federal appeals court has permanently blocked a controversial rule that would have stripped food stamp benefits from hundreds of thousands of Americans.
The US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld a previous ruling that found the Department of Agriculture's attempt to tighten eligibility requirements for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) was "arbitrary and capricious."
What the ruling means for American families
The proposed rule would have eliminated states' ability to extend SNAP benefits to households with slightly higher incomes if they had significant housing or childcare costs. This flexibility, known as "broad-based categorical eligibility," has been used by many states to help working families who struggle to make ends meet despite earning above the strict federal poverty line.
Judge Patricia Millett, writing for the three-judge panel, stated that the USDA had failed to provide adequate justification for suddenly reversing long-standing policy that had received bipartisan support for decades.
The human impact behind the legal battle
Anti-poverty organisations celebrated the decision as a crucial victory for vulnerable families during ongoing economic uncertainty. "This ruling protects a vital lifeline for children, seniors, and working parents across the nation," said one food bank director.
The Trump administration had argued the changes were necessary to reduce government spending and ensure benefits went only to the neediest households. However, critics maintained the move would have increased food insecurity while saving relatively little in the federal budget.
With this permanent injunction, the controversial rule cannot be implemented unless the administration appeals to the Supreme Court and succeeds in overturning the decision—an unlikely outcome with time running short before the presidential transition.
