Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Fact check: What legal precedent exists for courts ordering spending after a shutdown (e.g., 2013, 2018, 2019)?
Executive Summary
Courts historically have given procedural relief during past shutdowns—extending deadlines and keeping the judiciary running on existing fee balances—rather than ordering new appropriations; the Antideficiency Act restricts agencies from incurring obligations without Congress. Recent 2025 federal rulings ordering continued SNAP payments and blocking shutdown layoffs represent a potentially significant development because judges have, in specific cases, directed agencies to use existing emergency or reserve funds to carry out essential benefits, creating a narrower, fact‑specific precedent. [1] [2]
1. What advocates and news accounts are claiming — a snapshot that matters
Advocates and multiple news outlets assert that federal judges in 2025 have ordered the administration to continue spending on essential programs during the shutdown, particularly for SNAP benefits and to halt layoffs alleged to be retaliatory; those rulings are framed as establishing or reinforcing a legal precedent for courts to compel post‑shutdown spending. Coverage emphasizes two types of orders: injunctions halting executive actions (like layoffs) and directives requiring use of emergency reserves to continue benefits. The two most frequently cited rulings are district judges directing continued SNAP disbursements and a judge blocking layoffs, which reporters characterize as judicial intervention into pandemic and shutdown harms [2] [3].
2. How past shutdowns shaped judicial behavior — what happened in 2013, 2018 and 2019
Historical practice during the 2013 and 2018–2019 shutdowns shows courts largely exercised procedural restraint: extending deadlines, allowing the judiciary to operate on fee balances, and limiting relief to what the Antideficiency Act and available non‑appropriated funds permitted. Judges granted deadline extensions when federal lawyers were unavailable and used fee revenues to maintain court operations, but courts did not order Congress or agencies to create new appropriations or compel spending beyond existing balances. Reporting on those prior shutdowns underscores judicial reluctance to issue broad spending mandates, reflecting a separation‑of‑powers boundary that restrained courts from directing fiscal policy [1] [4] [5].
3. What changed in the 2025 decisions — specifics of the SNAP and layoffs orders
The 2025 rulings differ in that judges ordered agencies to use existing emergency reserve funds to continue SNAP disbursements and blocked planned layoffs during the shutdown, finding likely unlawfulness or imminent harm absent court intervention. Those orders did not create new appropriations from Congress but required the executive to tap particular statutory or regulatory reserves already available to the agency. Coverage highlights that judges framed relief around preventing irreparable harm to beneficiaries and enforcing statutory obligations, not around overriding Congress’s appropriations power; nonetheless, these orders functionally directed federal spending decisions during a funding gap [2] [6].
4. The Antideficiency Act is the structural limit — courts can enforce it but cannot conjure funds
The governing legal framework remains the Antideficiency Act, which bars agencies from incurring obligations without congressional appropriations and limits executive discretion during a lapse. Analyses emphasize that the Act allows agencies some latitude to carry out essential functions and use designated reserves or fee revenues, but it does not authorize courts to compel Congress to appropriate funds. The recent cases relied on statutory emergency or reserve mechanisms within agencies to bridge the gap; judges ordered use of those mechanisms where available rather than ordering novel appropriations, keeping the rulings within the logic of enforcing existing statutory frameworks [7] [5].
5. Where precedents converge and where they diverge — reading the legal picture
Precedent converges on the idea that courts will provide procedural and equitable relief in shutdowns—deadline extensions, injunctions against unlawful executive action, and enforcement of statutory duties—while diverging on the permissibility of directing agencies to spend. The 2025 rulings push the boundary by compelling the use of agency reserves, which some observers treat as a natural extension of judicial enforcement of statutory duties, while others see it as a narrower, case‑specific intervention that stops short of compelling Congress to appropriate funds. Past shutdowns show judicial restraint; the newest rulings show targeted judicial remedies when statutory authorities or reserves exist to carry out essential programs [1] [5] [2].
6. Bottom line — precedent is evolving but remains fact‑specific and limited
The durable rule is that courts generally cannot force Congress to appropriate money, but they can and will order the executive to use available statutory or reserve funding to prevent unlawful deprivation or irreparable harm. The 2025 decisions create a more prominent line of authority showing courts will require agencies to deploy emergency or reserve funds where statute and facts support such relief, but these decisions remain narrow and fact‑bound rather than establishing a broad power to mandate new spending after shutdowns. Future litigation will test the contours, and courts will likely continue to distinguish between compelling agency action under existing authorities and ordering new appropriations in defiance of Congress. [2] [3] [4]