Supreme Court Halts Order Requiring Trump Administration to Fully Fund SNAP Amid Shutdown Showdown
The Supreme Court has stepped to pause a lower court’s directive that required the Trump administration to fully fund the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) for November. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson issued the temporary stay, saying the order will remain in effect until the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals renders its decision. As the justice responsible for emergency applications from that circuit, Jackson acted alone and did not refer the issue to the full Court.
The administration’s emergency appeal to the Supreme Court came only hours after the 1st Circuit had denied its request for a temporary pause of a Rhode Island judge’s ruling mandating full SNAP funding. The Justice Department, facing an end-of-day deadline to allocate billions in benefits, asked the high court to intervene immediately.
In its appeal, Solicitor General John Sauer warned of the severe consequences if the lower court order stood. “Given the imminent, irreparable harms posed by these orders, which require the government to transfer an estimated $4 billion by tonight, the Solicitor General respectfully requests an immediate administrative stay of the orders pending the resolution of this application by no later than 9:30pm this evening,” he wrote.
The case revolves around whether a federal judge can compel the administration to use $4 billion from Section 32 of the 1935 Agricultural Adjustment Act Amendment to fund the month’s SNAP payments. Administration officials argued the money was already earmarked for child nutrition programs known as WIC, saying they could not redirect it without jeopardizing that program.
Attorney General Pam Bondi sharply criticized the appeals court’s refusal to issue a stay, calling it “Judicial activism at its worst.” She added, “A single district court in Rhode Island should not be able to seize center stage in the shutdown, seek to upend political negotiations that could produce swift political solutions for SNAP and other programs, and dictate its own preferences for how scarce federal funds should be spent.”
The Trump administration maintained that diverting funds from WIC to SNAP would have devastating consequences, arguing that such actions would create chaos across government budgets. “Indeed, if every beneficiary of a mandatory spending program could run to court and force the agency to transfer funds from elsewhere, the result would be an unworkable and conflicting plethora of injunctions that reduce the federal fisc to a giant shell game,” the government warned.
But the coalition of local governments and nonprofits that brought the lawsuit accused the administration of exaggerating its hardship. “Defendants’ bald assertion that they will face irreparable injury is entirely unsupported, and they callously disregard the grave harm that will befall Plaintiffs and millions of Americans if they succeed,” they wrote. They insisted that the government’s $23 billion in remaining funds was sufficient to pay for both WIC and SNAP, estimating monthly costs of $3 billion and $8.5 billion, respectively.
Even as the legal wrangling continued, multiple states pressed forward with distributing benefits. At least nine states—including California, Wisconsin, Kansas, Pennsylvania, and New York—reported Friday that they had already begun or completed issuing November SNAP payments. New York Governor Kathy Hochul said she instructed agencies to release full benefits, while New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy declared his state “acted immediately” to process them. Vermont’s treasurer, Mike Pieciak, said his state also completed full disbursements.
Kansas reported sending out over $31.6 million in benefits to more than 86,000 households, and Wisconsin confirmed $104.4 million had reached over 337,000 households. The U.S. Department of Agriculture, which oversees SNAP, informed states that it was “working toward paying full November SNAP benefits,” and later told them in writing that “later today, FNS will complete the processes necessary to make funds available to support your subsequent transmittal of full issuance files to your EBT processor.”
Behind the courtroom tension was a sharp exchange between U.S. District Judge John McConnell Jr. and administration lawyers. During Thursday’s hearing, McConnell accused the government of “withholding SNAP benefits for political reasons.” He had previously ordered the administration to use emergency funds to cover the November 1 payments, but officials chose to fund the program only in part, citing the need to conserve resources for WIC.
McConnell, in a strongly worded ruling Thursday, demanded the Trump administration provide full funding by Friday and chastised President Donald Trump for comments suggesting he would not comply until the government reopened. He wrote that the President’s statement reflected “his intent to defy” the order. The administration countered in a later filing that Trump was “just stating a fact,” explaining, “The district court also accused the President of bad faith for declaring that full SNAP benefits would not resume until the government reopens. But that was just stating a fact—the appropriation has lapsed, and it is up to Congress to solve this crisis.”
The government has urged the appeals court to allow partial funding to continue while preserving funds for other safety net programs. Judge McConnell rejected a government request to pause his ruling, writing, “The request for a stay of this decision, either a stay or an administration stay, is denied. People have gone without for too long. Not making payments to them for even another day is simply unacceptable.”
As the shutdown dragged on, McConnell’s rebuke captured the urgency of the moment: “People have gone without for too long, not making payments to them for even another day is simply unacceptable.”
{Matzav.com}