The SNAP ruling isn’t judicial activism. It’s the Constitution doing exactly what it was built to do: stop any president from treating the national budget like personal property.
The thing about the American government is this: we built the whole machine on the assumption that somebody, somewhere, is always trying to grab more power than they’re supposed to have. The Framers didn’t trust kings, generals, presidents, or even themselves. They trusted the structure. So they wrote a system where no one gets to run the table alone. That’s the whole Constitution in a sentence: nobody gets to be the boss of everything.
Now bring that forward to today and take a look at the SNAP ruling that just rolled out of federal court. A couple of judges told the administration: you don’t get to shrug and say “no money” just because the government’s in shutdown mode. Congress already funded this program. It’s the law. Feed the people.
And predictably, some folks are hollering that this is “judicial tyranny” or “activist courts” or a “deep state power grab.” Spare me. This isn’t rebellion. This is maintenance.
Let’s walk it out from the beginning.
Congress Controls the Purse
Every schoolkid used to learn this: Congress decides how money gets spent. Not the President. Not the Supreme Court. Congress. The power of the purse is older than America—it goes back to the English Parliament telling kings they couldn’t buy silk curtains and wars without permission. The Founders took that idea and bolted it to the Constitution like a steel hinge.
So when Congress funds SNAP—the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program—it doesn’t say, “if you feel like it.” It says, “The United States government will provide this benefit.”
SNAP isn’t some side hustle or pilot program. It’s mandatory spending. Same legal class as Social Security and Medicare. It does not shut down just because the Smithsonian does.
A President is required—constitutionally required—to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” That’s not poetry. That’s a job description.
Congress writes the law.
The President carries it out.
End of lesson.
Nixon Tried This Once—And Lost
In the 1970s, Richard Nixon didn’t like certain social programs Congress had funded. So he simply refused to spend the money.
Congress, which was much less timid in those days, said:
“No, sir. You don’t get to do that.”
They passed the Impoundment Control Act of 1974, which made it illegal for any President to unilaterally withhold funds that Congress already appropriated. If the President wants to freeze or cancel spending, he must go back to Congress and ask.
The message was carved in granite:
The purse is not the President’s toy.
This wasn’t liberal versus conservative. It was constitutional order versus presidential hubris.
Fast-forward through Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush again, Obama—every one of them tested that line. And every time, the same old structure held.
Then 2019 rolled around.
Ukraine Aid: The Modern Example
In summer 2019, the Trump administration froze military aid to Ukraine that Congress had already approved. The Government Accountability Office reviewed it and said, in bureaucratic prose that might as well have been shouted through a bullhorn:
“This violated the Impoundment Control Act.”
Not because of the politics.
Not because of the scandal that followed.
But because no President gets to play budget king.
Which brings us neatly to the shutdown and SNAP.
The Shutdown Is Not an Excuse
During the current shutdown, the administration said it couldn’t fully fund SNAP benefits. States sued. Advocacy groups sued. Families waited.
And the judges looked at the law—the actual statute—and said:
“SNAP is mandatory. Congress already said to pay it.
So pay it. Find the money. You don’t get to unilaterally starve a program that Congress has ordered to exist.”
The courts didn’t order new spending.
They enforced existing spending.
This is not judicial activism.
This is judicial review—the same rulebook since Marbury v. Madison in 1803.
Enter the Administrative Procedure Act — the Quiet Sheriff
Now here’s the part most folks never hear about, because it’s not sexy and it doesn’t fit on a bumper sticker.
In 1946 — just after WWII, when the federal government had ballooned into a modern bureaucracy — Congress passed the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
The APA is the rulebook for how federal agencies must behave. It requires agencies to:
-
Follow the law Congress wrote.
-
Explain their decisions with real reasons, not political vibes.
-
Avoid actions that are arbitrary, capricious, or not in accordance with law.
In plain talk:
The government can’t make decisions by whim.
If an agency says:
“We’d like to pay only part of SNAP this month because we’d rather use the funds elsewhere,”
the APA says:
“No. Show the statute that lets you do that. No statute? Then sit back down.”
The APA is the sheriff that walks up to the counter, taps the badge, and says:
Do your job, or we’re going to court.
And that’s exactly what happened this week.
The judges didn’t invent spending.
They didn’t grab executive power.
They simply enforced the law Congress already passed, using the APA as the wrench.
The Human Part
Now, look: I’ve been around bureaucracies long enough to know that events like this don’t unfold in newsprint simplicity. Somewhere inside USDA right now, there are exhausted civil servants with dark circles under their eyes, trying to figure out which drawer the emergency funds are in, while field offices ask how to message Tuesday morning.
They’re not villains. They’re people.
The villain, if there is one, is the false idea that government is a gunfight between “who’s in charge” and “who can be pushed aside.” It’s not a throne room. It’s a balance board.
And when the balance shifts too far, something old in the structure leans back and corrects it.
This week, the courts leaned.
The Republic Still Stands
If you’re frustrated, tired, cynical—fine. Those are reasonable reactions to living inside a democracy designed to be slow, frustrating, and allergic to strongmen.
But take this one bit of encouragement:
When a federal judge tells an administration, in a shutdown, during maximum political noise:
“You don’t get to ignore Congress. Feed the people,”
—that’s the Constitution breathing.
It’s not left or right.
It’s not red or blue.
It’s the old republic clearing its throat and reminding everyone:
You don’t get to rule by whim here.
Not now, not ever.
The purse belongs to Congress.
The law belongs to the people.
The President’s job is to carry it out.
And the courts?
They’re just the ones who say, when necessary:
Do your job.
Sources & Further Reading
-
Today’s ruling & context: AP reporting and local outlets on the Rhode Island order to fully fund November SNAP; prior orders to use emergency funds. Detroit Free Press+3https://www.wdbj7.com+3AP News+3
-
State backstops during the shutdown: Washington Post on Maryland, Virginia, and D.C. filling the gap. The Washington Post
-
Judicial review foundation: Marbury v. Madison—Archives and Constitution Center primers. National Archives+1
-
Take Care Clause: Constitution Annotated (Library of Congress) overview. Congress.gov
-
APA review standard: 5 U.S.C. § 706 (Law.Cornell.edu) and CRS explainer. Legal Information Institute+1
-
Impoundment rule: GAO—Impoundment Control Act page; GAO decision on the 2019 Ukraine aid hold; contemporaneous coverage. U.S. GAO+2U.S. GAO+2