Supreme Court Temporarily Blocks Full SNAP Funding Amid Government Shutdown
The Supreme Court on Friday temporarily halted a court order mandating full funding for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) in November, leaving the fate of food assistance for millions uncertain as the government shutdown continues. Despite some states already having distributed full benefits, the high court’s decision suspends the obligation to provide complete payments pending a ruling from a lower appeals court.
The legal battle centers on the Trump administration’s attempt to limit SNAP benefits to partial payments during the shutdown, arguing a lack of available funds. A Rhode Island federal judge had previously ordered the government to make 100% of payments by Friday, utilizing contingency funds and other available resources. However, the administration appealed, seeking to maintain the reduced payments already in progress.
After a Boston appeals court declined immediate intervention, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson issued an order late Friday suspending the requirement for full SNAP payments. This suspension will remain in effect for 48 hours after the appeals court issues its ruling on a longer stay, allowing the government an opportunity to return to the Supreme Court if the appeals court sides with the plaintiffs.
The situation is fluid, with reports indicating that officials in over half a dozen states had already begun distributing full November payments before Jackson’s order. This order could now prevent other states from initiating those payments. Prior to the Supreme Court’s action, the government had assured it would make 100% of the payments, though specifics regarding timing and implementation remained unclear.
According to a government memo, the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) was “working to implement the full issuance of benefits in November 2025, in compliance with the Rhode Island District Court’s November 6, 2025 order.” The memo further stated that the FNS would complete necessary procedures to make funds available to EBT processors.
The legal challenge originated from a lawsuit filed by cities and nonprofit organizations, who argued the administration’s decision to cover only 65% of maximum benefits would leave many recipients without assistance. A judge harshly criticized the administration, stating that “defendants failed to consider the practical consequences associated with this decision to only partially fund SNAP,” and acknowledged the harm to those reliant on the program.
Vice President JD Vance characterized Thursday’s ruling as “absurd,” stating that a resolution to the SNAP funding issue hinges on Democrats reopening the government. “But in the middle of a government shutdown, we cannot allow a federal court to tell the president how to handle the situation,” he said.
The Trump administration initially announced it would suspend November SNAP payments altogether if the government shutdown persisted. A coalition of cities and nonprofits, along with Democratic state officials in Rhode Island and Massachusetts, filed lawsuits, prompting judges to order the use of a $4.6 billion emergency reserve fund to cover the program’s $8.5 to $9 billion monthly cost.
The administration subsequently declared it would not tap additional funds, asserting that Congress is responsible for allocating program funding and that remaining reserves are needed for other child food assistance programs. Judge McConnell warned that without full SNAP funding, “16 million children are at immediate risk of hunger,” a situation he deemed unacceptable in the United States.
The administration’s legal arguments centered on the lack of congressional appropriation during the shutdown. However, attorneys for the plaintiffs countered that the administration was leveraging people’s hunger for political gain. One attorney stated, “What the defendants are really trying to do is take advantage of people’s hunger to gain partisan political advantage in the shutdown dispute.”
The partial funding approach would disproportionately impact those receiving less than the maximum benefit, with some families potentially receiving as little as $16. Carmel Scaife, a former Milwaukee daycare owner relying on $130 monthly SNAP benefits, explained that any reduction would force her to further deplete her Social Security income to afford food, impacting her ability to pay bills.
Initially, the administration threatened to withhold all benefits, later increasing the proposed payment to 65%. Government officials testified that states could require weeks or even months to adjust systems and distribute funds, even with partial payments.
The situation remains precarious for the over 40 million individuals who rely on SNAP benefits. The Supreme Court’s temporary block underscores the ongoing tension between the executive branch’s budgetary constraints and the urgent need to provide food assistance to vulnerable populations during a prolonged government shutdown.
