The Supreme Court on Tuesday reportedly granted the Trump administration temporary permission to continue withholding full federal food-assistance benefits for November, a decision that underscores the complex fiscal realities surrounding the ongoing government shutdown and the limits of judicial intervention in budgetary disputes.
The unsigned order extends until just before midnight Thursday an earlier hold placed on a lower court ruling that had directed the administration to pay the full amount of benefits under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP.
The extension preserves the administration’s ability to manage limited emergency funds while Congress remains deadlocked over appropriations.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who had initially granted an administrative stay, said she would have denied the administration’s request for an extension.
At the heart of the dispute is whether the federal courts can compel the executive branch to spend funds Congress has not appropriated. U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer, representing the administration, warned that enforcing the lower court’s order would “risk upsetting the congressional compromises” being negotiated to reopen the government and restore funding for programs such as SNAP. The administration has argued that it cannot lawfully spend money that Congress has not approved, even for a program as far-reaching as SNAP, which supports about 42 million Americans at a cost of $8 billion each month.
The controversy began when the administration announced that it would suspend SNAP payments for November because the shutdown had exhausted available appropriations. A coalition of Democratic-led states, including Massachusetts, and a group of cities and nonprofits in Rhode Island filed lawsuits demanding that the government use emergency funds to maintain full benefits.
U.S. District Judge John McConnell in Rhode Island sided with the challengers, ordering the government to pay the full monthly benefit by combining $4.65 billion in contingency funds with additional money from other nutrition programs. A federal appeals court later upheld McConnell’s authority to issue that order, setting off a flurry of conflicting directives between the judiciary and the executive branch.
The Department of Agriculture initially signaled compliance with McConnell’s ruling, instructing states to proceed with full benefit payments. But following Justice Jackson’s intervention, the administration reversed course, telling states to halt those payments. The rapid shifts left state agencies and millions of low-income families in limbo.
At least 16 states went ahead with full payments before the Supreme Court stepped in, while others drew on state funds or turned to food banks to fill the gap. The resulting patchwork of responses has left recipients uncertain about when or how much assistance they will receive.
“It’s been incredibly complicated and chaotic for SNAP beneficiaries and created a lot of uncertainty and fear for them,” said Diane Yentel, president and CEO of the National Council of Nonprofits, one of the groups challenging the administration’s decision.
The Supreme Court’s temporary stay is likely to remain in place until Congress acts on a pending House measure to reopen the government. For now, the justices appear wary of forcing the executive branch to spend unappropriated funds—a restraint that reflects not only constitutional boundaries but also a recognition of the need for Congress, not the courts, to resolve fiscal impasses.
[READ MORE: Trump Defends Allowing Chinese Students Despite Pushback from Laura Ingraham]
