The U.S. Supreme Court has intervened in the ongoing legal battle over food aid, creating uncertainty for millions of low-income Americans reliant on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) during a prolonged government shutdown.
The legal situation regarding November's SNAP benefits has been marked by rapid changes. It began when U.S. District Judge John McConnell, accusing the Trump administration of withholding benefits for "political reasons," ordered the government to fully fund SNAP for November . However, the administration quickly moved to appeal this decision . In an emergency ruling, Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson temporarily blocked the lower court's order, granting an administrative stay that allows the government to withhold the approximately $4 billion needed for full benefits for now . This stay is designed to give the Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals more time to consider the administration's arguments . The Justice Department had argued that being forced to make the full payments would "sow further shutdown chaos," while the plaintiffs argued that halting the benefits shows a disregard for the harm that would befall nearly one in eight Americans .
The conflict over SNAP funding is deeply entangled with the political fight causing the government shutdown. Judge McConnell stated that the evidence clearly shows that without full benefits, "people will go hungry, food pantries will be overburdened, and needless suffering will occur" . He pointed to public comments from President Trump, who had suggested SNAP benefits would only be paid when the shutdown ended, as evidence of an "intent to defy the court order" for political leverage . The Trump administration, however, maintains that the lapse in funding is a crisis "occasioned by congressional failure," arguing that a judicial order to spend funds violates the separation of powers and that Congress, not the courts, must solve the issue .
The back-and-forth in the courts has created a patchwork of responses and significant confusion at the state level. Just hours before the Supreme Court's intervention, the USDA had instructed states to proceed with issuing full November benefits, leading many to begin the process . Several states, including Wisconsin, Oregon, and Hawaii, moved rapidly to distribute the full amounts, with some officials working through the night to get funds onto recipients' electronic benefit cards before any potential court-ordered pause . States like New York, Massachusetts, and Pennsylvania also announced that residents would receive full benefits over the weekend . However, the Supreme Court's stay is likely to prevent states that had not yet initiated payments from doing so, creating a disparity where some Americans receive full benefits while others do not . The administration warned the Court that this state-level rush was causing a "run on the bank," potentially to the detriment of other states' allotments .
The potential loss of full SNAP benefits threatens profound consequences for the 42 million low-income Americans who rely on the program, marking the first time benefits have lapsed in the program's 60-year history . Recipients, who include children, seniors, veterans, and people with disabilities, have already been turning to already strained food pantries and making difficult sacrifices, such as forgoing medications, to stretch their tight budgets . The program provides an average of $187 per month, and for a family of four, the maximum benefit for the 2026 fiscal year is $994 . For many, this assistance is a critical lifeline. As one recipient expressed, the loss of benefits would have a devastating ripple effect, forcing impossible choices between food and other essentials like heating . Advocates warn that without SNAP, the U.S. could see the "most mass hunger suffering we've had in America since the Great Depression" .