United States Court of Appeals
                               For the First Circuit
                                   _____________________

No. 25-2089

    RHODE ISLAND STATE COUNCIL OF CHURCHES; NATIONAL COUNCIL OF
  NONPROFITS; SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION; MAIN STREET
      ALLIANCE; CITY OF CENTRAL FALLS; CITY OF PAWTUCKET; CITY OF
     PROVIDENCE; CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE; CITY OF BALTIMORE; CITY OF
COLUMBUS; CITY OF DURHAM; CITY OF NEW HAVEN; AMOS HOUSE; DR. MARTIN
   LUTHER KING, JR. COMMUNITY CENTER; EAST BAY COMMUNITY ACTION
  PROGRAM; FEDERAL HILL HOUSE ASSOCIATION; THE MILAGROS PROJECT;
UNITED WAY OF RHODE ISLAND; NEW YORK LEGAL ASSISTANCE GROUP; BLACK
                            SHEEP MARKET,

                                     Plaintiffs, Appellees,

                                               v.

BROOKE L. ROLLINS, in her official capacity as Secretary of the United States Department of
   Agriculture; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE; RUSSELL T.
 VOUGHT, in his official capacity as Director of the United States Office of Management and
    Budget; UNITED STATES OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET; SCOTT
BESSENT, in his official capacity as Secretary of the United States Department of the Treasury;
      UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY; UNITED STATES,

                                    Defendants, Appellants.
                                    __________________

                                            Before

                                      Barron, Chief Judge,
                              Gelpí and Rikelman, Circuit Judges.
                                     __________________
                                     ORDER OF COURT

                                  Entered: November 7, 2025

        This case was brought by cities, unions, nonprofits, and a retailer challenging the
government defendants' ("government") suspension of benefits under the Supplemental Nutrition
Assistance Program (SNAP) during the ongoing lapse in congressional appropriations. On
October 31, the district court granted the plaintiffs' motion for a temporary restraining order,
directing the defendants to distribute SNAP funds for the month of November. The district court
provided the government two options: "make the full SNAP benefit payments by Monday,
November 3, 2025," including by using a SNAP contingency fund and drawing on a fund created
by Section 32 of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1935, 7 U.S.C. § 612c ("Section 32 fund"),
or "expeditiously resolve the administrative and clerical burdens it described" in previous filings
and "make a partial payment of the total amount of the contingency funds . . . by Wednesday,
November 5, 2025." On November 4, the plaintiffs filed a motion to enforce the temporary
restraining order, or, in the alternative, for the district court to enter a new temporary restraining
order. The motion contended that the government failed to comply with the district court's first
temporary restraining order because the government, among other things, "failed to expeditiously
resolve the burdens associated with partial SNAP payments," as required.

        In a November 6 order, the district court granted the motion to enforce its October 31 order,
concluding that the government had failed to either fully fund SNAP for November or to resolve
administrative and clerical burdens such that partial payments would be made. It therefore directed
the government "to make full SNAP payments . . . by utilizing available Section 32 funds in
combination with the contingency funds." In the same November 6 order, the district court issued
a second temporary restraining order concluding that the government's decision not to use Section
32 funds to issue full SNAP benefits in November was arbitrary and capricious and similarly
directing the government to make full payments of SNAP benefits by November 7, including by
using the Section 32 fund.

        The government filed a notice of appeal and has moved to stay pending appeal the district
court's November 6 orders. The government requests a stay on the merits and an administrative
stay. We note that in its stay briefing to us, the government has not disputed that it may under 

 use the Section 32 fund to cover the provision of SNAP benefits for the month of
November. Because the November 6 orders provide the same relief, the government would need
to establish that it is entitled to a stay of both orders in order to receive the relief that it requests
from being required to make full SNAP payments by utilizing available Section 32 funds in
combination with the contingency funds.

       The request for an administrative stay is denied. The government's motion for a stay
pending appeal remains pending, and we intend to issue a decision on that motion as quickly as
possible.

                                                        By the Court:

                                                        Anastasia Dubrovsky, Clerk

cc:
Catherine Mary Agnes Carroll, Amy Retsinas Romero, Jyoti Jasrasaria, Kevin Love Hubbard,
Kristin Bateman, Robin F. Thurston, Skye L. Perryman, Adnan Perwez, Andrew Liang
Bookbinder, Michael J. Torcello, Michael S. Raab, Lauren S. Zurier, Kevin M. Bolan, Laura,
Myron, Rachna Vyas, Jason Altabet, Tyler J. Becker, Joseph E. Borson