Today's News: Supreme Court Temporarily Halts Lower Court Order for Full SNAP Assistance Payments
The administration had argued it could only provide partial benefits due to the ongoing government shutdown and resisted tapping additional funds, while a federal judge had ordered full payments.
Photo: John G Mabanglo/EPA
Overview
Date: November 7-8, 2025
Summary: The Supreme Court, through Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, temporarily blocked a lower court order that mandated the Trump administration to fully fund the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) for November. This administrative stay gives an appeals court more time to review the case, injecting uncertainty into the immediate availability of full food benefits for approximately 42 million Americans. Despite the Supreme Court’s pause, some states had already begun distributing full benefits, and the Agriculture Department had, at one point, indicated it would comply with the lower court’s directive.
Sources
The New York Times - Supreme Court Temporarily Allows Trump to Curtail Food Stamp Funding
CNN - Supreme Court lets Trump pause full SNAP payments for now
The Washington Post - Supreme Court temporarily blocks order on releasing SNAP benefits
Key Points
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson of the Supreme Court issued a temporary administrative stay on a lower court’s order, allowing the Trump administration to pause full funding for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) for November.
The stay is provisional, intended to give the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals more time to review the case, and does not resolve the underlying legal questions regarding the administration’s obligation to fully fund SNAP.
The Trump administration consistently argued that the ongoing government shutdown limited its ability to fully fund SNAP, contending it could only provide partial benefits using a contingency fund and resisted tapping additional sources like child nutrition funds or tariff revenue.
U.S. District Judge John J. McConnell Jr. of Rhode Island had repeatedly ordered the administration to fully fund SNAP benefits, chastising them for delays and a lack of compliance, citing “irreparable harm” and the immediate risk of hunger for millions of Americans.
The Justice Department and Attorney General Pam Bondi argued against Judge McConnell’s orders, asserting that the judge lacked the authority to dictate federal spending and that his actions constituted an overreach of judicial power, making “a mockery of the separation of powers.”
Despite the legal battle and the Supreme Court’s temporary halt, the U.S. Department of Agriculture had, at one point on Friday, indicated to states its intention to comply with Judge McConnell’s order and make full payments available.
Approximately 42 million Americans rely on SNAP benefits, and the uncertainty surrounding the funding has been highlighted as a significant and tangible impact of the historically long government shutdown.
Unique Highlights
The New York Times details that several specific states, including New York, Kansas, Pennsylvania, and Oregon, had already begun to release full benefits to their residents before the Supreme Court’s intervention. It also specifies the two pots of money the administration refused to use: a roughly $5 billion emergency reserve and a second pot of money from tariff revenue.
NBC News specifies that the administration had agreed to pay about $5 billion from a SNAP contingency fund but objected to paying another $4 billion from “Section 32 funding” designated for child nutrition programs. It also highlights that this is the “first time SNAP benefits have lapsed because of a government shutdown in the program’s 61-year history.”
CNN provides specific examples of issues caused by states rushing to issue full payments, noting Wisconsin overdrawing its letter of credit by $20 million and Kansas issuing nearly $32 million to approximately 86,000 households. It also quotes Kansas Democratic Governor Laura Kelly’s statement regarding her state’s actions.
The Washington Post emphasizes the demographic breakdown of SNAP recipients, stating they are “mostly children, the elderly and adults with disabilities.” It also details Judge McConnell’s specific finding that the administration’s conduct was “more than poor judgment; it is arbitrary and capricious” and quotes his incredulity at the administration prioritizing a “hypothetical disruption in child food assistance” over immediate hunger.
The Wall Street Journal provides the total monthly SNAP benefits figure, stating they “total roughly $8 billion a month.” It also mentions that a “federal judge in Massachusetts” had also ruled the administration must use emergency funds, indicating another legal challenge beyond the Rhode Island case.
Fox News quotes New York Attorney General Letitia James, who called the Supreme Court’s decision a “tragedy” and criticized the Trump administration for fighting the funding in court. It also states the administration would pay “65% of the roughly $9 billion owed” for November.
Contrasting Details
Regarding the specific amount the Trump administration was willing to pay for partial benefits, NBC News states the administration agreed to use “about $5 billion from a SNAP contingency fund,” while The Wall Street Journal gives a slightly different figure of “$4.65 billion in contingency funds.” Fox News states the administration would pay “65% of the roughly $9 billion owed,” implying a total closer to $5.85 billion, which differs from the other specific figures.
While most articles describe the administration’s resistance to using other funds, NBC News specifically names “Section 32 funding” for child nutrition programs as the source the administration objected to using for the additional $4 billion. CNN specifies this additional funding as “additional unused tariff revenue used to support child nutrition programs,” while The New York Times broadly mentions “a second pot of money at the Agriculture Department filled primarily with tariff revenue,” and The Washington Post refers to “raiding an entirely different program” (school meals).
The New York Times states that Judge McConnell initially gave the government discretion on whether to make partial or full payments, but later required full funding. In contrast, CNN and Fox News emphasize that McConnell’s updated order gave the administration a 24-hour deadline to comply after rejecting partial funding.
The Newsie Project uses AI to summarize, compare, and contrast the reporting of the major US and world online news sources.
This is an evolving project. Tools, approaches, and output formats will change over time. The Newsie Project does not attempt to provide a definitive capsule of any news story. While the incidence of errors in these summaries is low, and I attempt to spot-check details, AI tools can hallucinate. Please click through and read the articles for details (some may be paywalled).