The Supreme Court intervened late Friday to temporarily halt a federal judge’s order that required the Trump administration to fully fund Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits for November amid the ongoing government shutdown. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson issued an emergency stay, pausing the mandate until an appeals court can rule on the case, giving the administration reprieve from immediate full payment obligations.
This decision comes after a series of legal battles over SNAP funding during the shutdown. Last week, federal judges ruled that the administration could not skip November’s benefits entirely, leading to an order from U.S. District Judge John J. McConnell Jr. on Thursday demanding full payments by Friday. The Trump administration appealed, arguing that compelling full funding would deplete emergency reserves needed for other programs like the Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) nutrition program.
Justice Jackson’s order, issued as part of her duties handling emergency matters from the First Circuit, will remain in effect until 48 hours after the appeals court issues its judgment. This provides time for further legal review and potential escalation to the full Supreme Court if necessary. The administration had warned that states rushing to distribute benefits could irreversibly drain limited funds.
Amid the court wrangling, several states moved quickly to issue full SNAP payments on Friday, leveraging the brief window before higher court intervention. States like Wisconsin, Oregon, and Hawaii processed billions in benefits, with officials working overnight to ensure recipients received aid. However, Jackson’s pause may prevent other states from initiating similar distributions, creating a patchwork of access across the country.
The Trump administration contended in court filings that the lower court’s order usurped legislative and executive authority, calling it “judicial activism at its worst.” Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued that using Section 32 funds from the Agricultural Adjustment Act for SNAP would jeopardize WIC, essentially “starving Peter to feed Paul.” The administration maintains that Congress must appropriate funds to resolve the shutdown-related shortfall.
Advocates and state leaders pushed back, emphasizing the critical need for food assistance. New York Attorney General Letitia James described the Supreme Court’s decision as “a tragedy for millions of Americans,” while some states used their own funds to supplement aid. The legal clash highlights the tension between judicial oversight and executive discretion during budgetary crises.
Looking ahead, the appeals court is now tasked with determining whether to impose a more lasting pause on full SNAP payments. The outcome could influence not only November benefits but also future shutdown responses, setting precedents for emergency funding allocations. Recipients face continued uncertainty, with many relying on food pantries and state interventions as the political stalemate persists.
