Supreme Court Temporarily Pauses Order for Full SNAP Funding Amid Government Dispute
The Supreme Court has temporarily halted a lower court’s ruling that mandated the full funding of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) for November, injecting further complexity into an ongoing battle between the Biden administration and the previous administration over federal spending priorities. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson issued the order late Friday, pausing the requirement that the Trump administration fully fund SNAP by the end of the day, until the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals delivers a judgment on the matter.
This move comes after the Court of Appeals earlier on Friday denied a request from the Trump administration for an administrative stay of the funding order. The administration then appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing the immediate transfer of an estimated $4 billion would cause “imminent, irreparable harms.” Justice Jackson, assigned to emergency applications from the 1st circuit, did not refer the matter to the full Supreme Court for consideration.
The legal dispute centers on whether a federal judge can compel the government to utilize $4 billion from Section 32 of the Agricultural Adjustment Act Amendment of 1935 to cover November SNAP benefits. The Trump administration contends these funds are crucial for supporting the Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) program, arguing that diverting them to SNAP would create a “starve Peter to feed Paul” scenario. Solicitor General John Sauer, in a filing with the Supreme Court, warned of a “conflicting plethora of injunctions” if courts could routinely force agencies to reallocate funds.
Despite the legal challenges, at least nine states proactively began issuing full SNAP benefits on Friday, acting on guidance from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). The USDA informed states it was working to make funds available for full November payments, stating that it would “complete the processes necessary to make funds available” to facilitate benefit distribution. States reporting early distribution included California, Wisconsin, Kansas, Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey, Vermont, and officials reported distributing over $135 million in benefits to hundreds of thousands of households.
The initial ruling came from U.S. District Judge John McConnell Jr., who accused the Trump administration of “withholding SNAP benefits for political reasons.” Judge McConnell had previously ordered the government to use emergency funds to cover SNAP payments, but the administration initially committed to only partial funding, citing the need to preserve resources for WIC. He directly criticized President Donald Trump for publicly suggesting he would defy a court order regarding SNAP funding.
In response to Judge McConnell’s rebuke, the Trump administration argued that President Trump was “just stating a fact” – that funding was contingent on resolving the ongoing government shutdown and Congressional action. A senior official stated that the lapse in appropriation was the core issue, and Congress held the responsibility for a resolution.
Opponents of the administration’s position countered that the government’s claims of irreparable harm were unsubstantiated, and highlighted the ample remaining funds available. They pointed out that the $23 billion in remaining funds far exceeds the combined needs of both WIC ($3 billion monthly) and SNAP ($8.5 billion monthly).
The circuit court’s denial of the administration’s request prompted a sharp response from U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi, who labeled the decision “Judicial activism at its worst.” Bondi argued that a single district court should not be able to “seize center stage” during a shutdown and dictate funding priorities.
As the legal battle unfolds, millions of Americans remain reliant on SNAP benefits for food security. The Supreme Court’s temporary pause introduces further uncertainty, leaving the future of November SNAP funding in the hands of the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
