What emergency powers (e.g., National Emergencies Act 1976) have presidents used to shift funds and have courts upheld those uses?

1. Court orders forced a change in executive funding choices

Two federal judges issued rulings directing the administration to use contingency funds to keep SNAP flowing during the shutdown, and their orders prompted the administration to authorize a partial payment that officials said would expend the program’s contingency funding—roughly $4.65 billion—enough for about half of normal monthly benefits ^{[4] [2] [1]}.

2. The administration’s legal and policy rationale for resistance

USDA and the White House framed contingency money as intended for “true emergencies—like hurricanes, tornadoes, and floods”—and said tapping other emergency pots or transfer authorities would risk leaving no money for future disasters or child nutrition programs through FY2026 ^{[5] [6] [2]}. Officials also disputed how quickly shifted funds could be distributed and noted administrative lead time to make pro rata payments ^{[7] [1]}.

3. Judges emphasized congressional intent and beneficiary protection

At least one judge said Congress set aside contingency reserves to “protect the American people” when regular funding lapses, and ordered the government to act “as soon as possible” to avoid prolonged interruption of benefits—reflecting a judicial view that contingency funds are precisely for shutdown-induced shortfalls ^{[3] [8]}.

4. Scope of judicial relief was limited — partial funding, not blanket authority

Courts in Massachusetts and Rhode Island gave the administration leeway on whether to fund SNAP partially or fully and did not unambiguously compel every available transfer; in practice judges required use of one emergency fund to provide at least partial benefits while leaving open further legal fights over additional authorities ^{[9] [2]}.

5. Administrative practice and precedent matter to the dispute

Advocates pointed to earlier USDA guidance (and versions later removed) and prior administrations’ contingency plans showing use of multi‑year carryover and contingency reserves during shutdowns; fact-checkers and think tanks said the administration had legal transfer options beyond the primary contingency pot, and some former guidance supported using those funds to keep benefits flowing ^{[10] [11]}.

6. Political context shaped the legal fight and public messaging

The dispute played out amid partisan standoff over the continuing resolution: the White House and GOP framed tapping extra funds as imprudent or legally unavailable and used public messaging to press Democrats to reopen government, while opponents and hunger advocates accused the administration of withholding money for political leverage ^{[7] [5] [11]}.

7. Practical consequences for beneficiaries and states

Officials warned that even if the administration tapped additional funds, weeks could pass before money hit recipients’ EBT cards; states and food banks scrambled to plan for partial or delayed distributions, and some sued to force fuller payments ^{[7] [11] [12]}.

8. Unresolved legal questions and likely next steps

Sources show the immediate judicial orders resulted in partial SNAP funding, but disagreements remain about which pots are legally “available” and whether the administration can or will use broader transfer authorities to provide full benefits—an issue likely to see further litigation and political pressure ^{[1] [10] [12]}.

Limitations: reporting in these sources focuses on the October–November 2025 shutdown standoff over SNAP contingency funds and related court rulings; available sources do not mention other specific statutes (like the National Emergencies Act of 1976) being invoked here, nor do they provide full appellate outcomes beyond the immediate district-court orders (not found in current reporting) ^{[1] [3]}.