Supreme Court pauses full SNAP payments amid shutdown, escalating a separation‑of‑powers fight with immediate human stakes
On Friday night, November 7, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court—via Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson—issued an administrative stay that temporarily halted a lower-court order requiring the Trump administration to fully fund November Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits during the ongoing federal shutdown. The move came hours after several states rushed to push full payments to their residents, and it sharpened a fast-moving legal and political confrontation over how, and whether, the executive branch may redirect existing funds to sustain core social programs when Congress has not appropriated money. [1]
What just happened—and why it matters
- Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson granted an administrative stay on Nov. 7 that pauses a Rhode Island federal judge’s order compelling the administration to pay full November SNAP benefits immediately. The stay lasts until 48 hours after the First Circuit rules on a pending stay motion. [2]
- USDA had reduced November benefits to 50%, then 65%, citing limited funds and shutdown constraints; a district court said the agency must make full payments, including by using the Agriculture Department’s “Section 32” fund. [3]
- AP, WaPo, and Politico report that some states issued full payments Friday before the Supreme Court’s pause; tens of millions still face uncertainty. [4]
- The continuing resolution (H.R. 5371) designed to avert or end the shutdown failed in the Senate; a motion to proceed was withdrawn Nov. 7, underscoring the funding impasse. [5]
The fast-evolving legal timeline
District court orders (Oct. 31 and Nov. 6)
After USDA told states on Nov. 4 it would reduce November SNAP to 50% and then revised to 65% on Nov. 5, Chief Judge John J. McConnell Jr. of the District of Rhode Island ordered the administration on Nov. 6 to “make full payments of November SNAP benefits to the states by Friday, November 7,” authorizing use of both the SNAP contingency fund and the Section 32 fund. The court found failing to fully fund SNAP would cause “irreparable harm.” [6]
“Without SNAP funding for the month of November, 16 million children are immediately at risk of going hungry.” [7]
First Circuit: no administrative stay; merits stay pending
On Friday evening, a First Circuit panel (Barron, Gelpí, Rikelman) denied the government’s request for an administrative stay, noting the government did not dispute it could legally use Section 32 under 7 U.S.C. § 2257, and said it would rule quickly on a stay pending appeal. [8]
Supreme Court: administrative stay to preserve status quo
Later Friday, Justice Jackson—who handles emergency matters from the First Circuit—issued an administrative stay halting the district court’s order while the appeals court considers the government’s stay motion. Her order terminates 48 hours after the First Circuit’s decision unless the Supreme Court or a Justice says otherwise. [9]
Where the money would come from—and why that’s contested
SNAP serves roughly 42 million people—about one in eight Americans—at a monthly federal cost of roughly $8.5–$9 billion. USDA’s contingency account held more than $4.6 billion, while Section 32 (funded by tariff receipts) is a separate permanent appropriation. The core dispute is whether, during a shutdown, the executive can lawfully tap Section 32 to backfill SNAP without explicit, current-year appropriations from Congress. [10]
USDA November directives
Nov. 4 memo: reduce SNAP to 50% of maximum; Nov. 5 revision: 65%; both cited funding limits and shutdown law. [11]
District court mandate
Order to use contingency + Section 32 to achieve full benefits by Nov. 7; denial of mere partial-payment compliance. [12]
SCOTUS emergency step
Administrative stay from Justice Jackson pending First Circuit action; 48-hour sunset after appellate ruling. [13]
States’ mixed actions
Wisconsin, Oregon, Hawaii, California, Kansas, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Washington moved to full payouts Friday; others awaited guidance or issued partial benefits. [14]
Congressional backdrop
H.R. 5371 (CR to Nov. 21) passed House but failed in Senate; “motion to proceed” withdrawn Nov. 7. [15]
The arguments—law and politics
| Side | Core claim | Evidence/position | Risks/criticisms |
|---|---|---|---|
| Administration | Courts cannot compel executive to reallocate funds during a shutdown; using Section 32 jeopardizes other programs and violates separation of powers. | Solicitor General argued that once “billions are out the door,” they can’t be recouped; USDA pursued partial (65%) benefits. [16] | District court called the partial-payment plan arbitrary and capricious given immediate harm to beneficiaries. [17] |
| Plaintiffs (cities, nonprofits, unions) | USDA can and must use Section 32 plus contingency funds to avert irreparable harm; statutes permit it. | First Circuit noted the government did not dispute legal authority to use Section 32; district court found strong public-interest factors. [18] | Administrative stay reflects judicial caution against irreversible fiscal actions while appellate review proceeds. [19] |
| States | Some executed full payments to prevent hunger and market disruption; others held pending federal guidance. | Multiple states say they “worked through the night” to deliver full benefits after the Nov. 6 ruling. [20] | SCOTUS pause generates unequal treatment across states and potential reconciliation challenges. [21] |
Shutdown spillovers: aviation and broader services
The shutdown’s ripple effects extend beyond SNAP. DOT announced phased flight reductions rising to 10% at 40 high-traffic airports to maintain safety amid staffing stress, with carriers required to refund affected passengers. Essential Air Service was temporarily propped up with stopgap funding to avoid lapses. [22]
Key quotes driving the debate
“This unprecedented injunction makes a mockery of the separation of powers.” — Solicitor General D. John Sauer, in the government’s filing to the Supreme Court. [23]
“We moved with haste once we verified everything.” — Hawaii DHS official on issuing full benefits before the stay. [24]
What to watch next (Nov. 8–10)
Appellate clock
The First Circuit has signaled an expedited ruling on the government’s stay motion. The Supreme Court’s administrative stay expires 48 hours after that ruling unless extended. 🏛️ [25]
State-level execution
States that pushed full payments face reconciliation risks if federal guidance shifts; others must decide whether to move ahead pending appellate clarity. [26]
Hill dynamics
Absent a fresh continuing resolution or appropriations deal, agencies will keep leaning on narrow authorities and reserves—raising the likelihood of more litigation over program-by-program workarounds. 🗳️ [27]
Analysis: policy, precedent, and politics
Substantively, this fight turns on statutory flexibility during a shutdown. District and appellate filings indicate Section 32 can legally be tapped for SNAP in this emergency; the government emphasizes institutional limits and budget integrity. The Supreme Court’s administrative stay is not a merits ruling but reflects caution about irreversible fiscal actions before appellate review. In practical terms, families’ ability to buy food this weekend hinges on jurisdiction and agency execution, not national policy clarity. [28]
Politically, the episode exposes the risks of governing through brinkmanship. The House-passed CR that would have extended funding to Nov. 21 failed in the Senate, prolonging a confrontation in which courts are now refereeing immediate human needs and executive discretion. The optics—food benefits in flux for 42 million people while flights are cut back—create pressure points on both parties to reach a fiscal off‑ramp. 📊 ⚖️ [29]
References
- Supreme Court docket: 25A539, Rollins v. Rhode Island State Council of Churches (administrative stay, Nov. 7, 2025). [30]
- Associated Press: “Supreme Court issues emergency order to block full SNAP food aid payments,” Nov. 7, 2025. [31]
- Washington Post coverage of the SCOTUS pause and district court rulings, Nov. 6–7, 2025. [32]
- Politico: USDA communications with states amid litigation, Nov. 7, 2025. [33]
- USDA/FNS memoranda on November SNAP reductions (50%, then 65%). [34]
- First Circuit docket summary (No. 25-2089) detailing district orders and Section 32 authority. [35]
- Congress.gov: H.R. 5371 Continuing Appropriations and Extensions Act, 2026—status and actions through Nov. 7, 2025. [36]
- U.S. DOT notices on shutdown-related flight reductions and consumer guidance, Nov. 6, 2025. [37]
Bottom line: Over the next 48–72 hours, the First Circuit’s decision on a stay—and any follow-on Supreme Court action—will determine whether full November SNAP funding proceeds via Section 32 or remains paused pending a full appeal. In parallel, congressional leaders face intensifying pressure to end the shutdown through a new CR or omnibus appropriation. [38]
Comments
0 commentsJoin the discussion below.