Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday kept in place a pause on a lower-court order that had directed the Trump administration to pay full food assistance benefits to millions of Americans, preventing federal officials, for now, from having to provide the aid.
The high court’s order said it was keeping the lower court’s ruling paused through 11:59 p.m. Thursday. The Supreme Court’s order Tuesday evening provided no explanation, as is typical in the court’s responses to emergency requests, but came amid signs that the funding issue could soon be resolved by other government officials.
A high-stakes court battle has been waged recently over Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, benefits, vital funding that helps 42 million people nationwide—or about 1 in 8 Americans— afford groceries. With the federal government shut down, the SNAP program ran out of funding Nov. 1.
The Trump administration has resisted pulling the money from other government funding sources, saying this would lead to shortfalls elsewhere. States, cities, nonprofits and other groups have sued to force the administration to release the funding.
The legal issue over the funding could be rendered moot soon if a deal advancing on Capitol Hill to end the shutdown is adopted. That measure—which has passed the Senate, with the House expected to vote as soon as Wednesday—would fund SNAP through September.
The Supreme Court’s decision Tuesday evening means that the Trump administration will not be obliged to tap other funding to pay for November food aid benefits for the time being, and it may never ultimately be forced to do so if the shutdown ends soon.
The lower court order that had directed the administration to fully fund the benefits has been blocked since Friday evening, when Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson issued a short-term stay of it to let an appeals court rule on the issue.
The appeals court late Sunday declined to pause the lower court order, and the Trump administration returned to the Supreme Court on Monday seeking relief from the justices.
The stay Jackson issued on Friday said it would expire within 48 hours of the appeals court’s ruling, a deadline that loomed Tuesday evening. The order on Tuesday extending the stay said that Jackson would have declined to extend her previous order. There were no other noted dissents.
The Trump administration had pushed back against being required to fully fund the benefits, criticizing lower courts for their decisions on the matter.
Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote in a filing Monday that “politically unaccountable federal courts” should not be ordering the administration to move funding around. Sauer also criticized judges for issuing rulings that he suggested could imperil congressional negotiations aimed at ending the shutdown.
The Trump administration “unequivocally agrees that any lapse in SNAP funding is tragic,” Sauer wrote.
“But the answer to this crisis is not for federal courts to reallocate resources without lawful authority,” Sauer continued. “The only way to end this crisis—which the Executive is adamant to end—is for Congress to reopen the government.”
A group that sued to force the release of the benefits told the Supreme Court on Tuesday morning that the Trump administration was “leveraging SNAP to gain partisan political advantage in the shutdown fight.”
“This Court should not participate in that effort,” wrote attorneys for the group, which includes several cities and nonprofits that provide food assistance. “There is no justification for the Court to step in to stop needed benefits from flowing to the children, seniors, low-wage workers, veterans, and others who rely on them for food.”
The SNAP funding lapse has been grueling for Americans who rely on the government’s largest anti-hunger program, leaving families struggling to figure out what—if any—money would become available.
SNAP is managed federally by the Agriculture Department, while states handle administering the funding to residents. Funding has been released in some places, while a patchwork of local, state and private efforts have sought to fill the gaps elsewhere.
The status of the overall funding has been tangled in ambiguity in recent days amid a flurry of court decisions and sometimes conflicting federal guidance.
U.S. District Judge John J. McConnell Jr. of Rhode Island last week ordered the Trump administration to release the full SNAP funding for November by Friday.
McConnell, who was appointed by President Barack Obama, had originally told federal officials to try to find the money to make full payments. If they chose to make partial payments, McConnell said, that was acceptable, but it had to happen quickly.
By Thursday, McConnell concluded that the administration was not adhering to his edict, and he told officials to get the funding out the next day. The Trump administration asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit and the U.S. Supreme Court to pause McConnell’s directive.
On Friday night, Jackson, who hears cases arising out of the 1st Circuit, issued her temporary stay of McConnell’s order to give the appeals court time to decide the issue.
Late Sunday, a 1st Circuit panel of judges ruled against the administration. The group declined to stop McConnell’s order, writing that tens of millions of Americans who would go hungry without SNAP benefits faced “immediate, predictable, and unchallenged harms” if the funding was not released.
With that decision in hand, the Trump administration returned to the Supreme Court on Monday morning, making clear it still wanted the justices to stop McConnell’s order from taking effect.
Jackson ordered filings from both sides by Tuesday morning, a rapid turnaround that suggested she expected the high court to act quickly on the issue.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.