Fact check: Judge files restraining order to trump

1. A judge stops SNAP cuts — why millions stayed on the rolls and what the orders actually said

Federal courts intervened to prevent an immediate cutoff of SNAP benefits during the federal funding lapse, with at least one judge granting a temporary restraining order requiring emergency contingency funds be used to continue payments so recipients would not lose access to food assistance. The litigation produced split rulings across jurisdictions: one judge granted a restraining order blocking the administration’s attempt to halt SNAP, while another judge ordered the use of emergency funds but declined a separate injunctive relief, leaving some discretion to officials over scope and timing. These orders explicitly framed the relief in urgent humanitarian terms, noting the severe impact on families facing food insecurity, and they temporarily preserved benefit distributions while the underlying legal disputes proceed ^{[1] [4] [3]}.

2. Two tracks of litigation — emergency funding orders and constitutional checks on federalization

The actions fall into two legal tracks with different legal bases and outcomes. In the SNAP cases, judges relied on statutory authorities and equitable relief doctrines to compel continued payments from contingency funds, reflecting a practical emergency-response rationale to prevent immediate harm to millions. Separately, in challenges to the federalization of state National Guard units, a federal judge concluded the President exceeded statutory authority under 10 U.S.C. § 12406 and violated the Tenth Amendment, issuing a restraining order against federalization in at least one instance. These holdings underscore distinct judicial approaches: emergency equitable relief to maintain benefits versus constitutional and statutory limits on executive power in domestic military deployments ^{[4] [2]}.

3. Timing and scope: what dates and jurisdictions tell us about judicial pushback

The rulings span October 2025 into November 1, 2025, indicating rapid litigation amid overlapping crises. The SNAP decisions were concentrated around October 31–November 1, 2025, and included district courts in multiple circuits taking immediate steps to prevent benefits disruptions. The National Guard opinion was issued earlier in October 2025, signifying that courts acted on questions of federal authority weeks before the SNAP orders. This sequencing shows courts addressing different facets of executive action in close succession, with district courts moving quickly to issue temporary restraints while appellate routes — such as the Ninth Circuit’s stay in Newsom v. Trump — proceeded in parallel, reflecting competing judicial determinations about the proper balance of state and federal roles ^{[1] [3] [2] [5]}.

4. Conflicting decisions and the role of appeals — how durable are these orders?

The presence of back-to-back or split rulings highlights legal uncertainty and the likelihood of rapid appeals. Two federal judges issued orders compelling continued SNAP payments, but at least one judge left open administration discretion on the extent of assistance, and appellate courts have already been involved in related National Guard disputes, with the Ninth Circuit later extending a stay in Newsom v. Trump. These procedural dynamics mean temporary restraining orders provide immediate relief but are inherently provisional, subject to modification, stays, or reversals on appeal. The practical effect depended on whether appellate courts grant stays or expedite review; until higher courts act, district court orders function as immediate but potentially short-lived checks ^{[4] [5] [6]}.

5. Political framing, legal agendas, and what the records omit

Parties and advocates frame these judicial interventions very differently: plaintiffs and advocacy groups emphasize urgent humanitarian protection for vulnerable populations and constitutional limits on executive overreach, while the administration frames judicial actions as impediments to policy or fiscal prerogatives. The public records focus on immediate injunctive relief and statutory interpretation but omit longer-term contingency planning, detailed fiscal impact studies, and the administration’s operational alternatives for delivering benefits without contingency funds. These omissions mean readers should note both the narrow legal relief granted and the broader policy and political strategies each side may pursue as litigation moves to appellate courts ^{[1] [2] [6]}.