Supreme Court extends pause on $4B SNAP payments, affecting 42 million Americans as Jackson dissents

The Supreme Court extended an order on Nov. 11, 2025, blocking full SNAP payments through Nov. 13, with Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson as the sole dissenter. As the circuit justice for the First Circuit under the Judiciary Act of 1789, Jackson handles emergency matters from Rhode Island and initially granted an administrative stay on Nov. 7—a short-term pause meant only to give the full Court time to consider the request—before dissenting when the majority extended that pause until Thursday night.

U.S. District Judge John McConnell ruled on Nov. 6 that the administration must pay full SNAP benefits using Section 32 funds. He found the administration acted arbitrarily and capriciously when it funded only 65% of typical benefits. The administration refused to use additional contingency funds and issued only partial benefits, citing other child nutrition programs. Judge McConnell ordered full payments by Nov. 7, but the Supreme Court stayed that order.

SNAP costs $9 billion monthly and serves 42 million Americans. The administration only paid $5 billion, providing 65% of typical benefits. Some states issued full benefits following USDA guidance before the Supreme Court intervened, while others issued nothing. The inconsistency created confusion for recipients who didn't know whether they would receive full or partial benefits.

The administration argued Section 32 funds are needed for WIC programs feeding pregnant women and children. However, Judge McConnell found this concern was hypothetical and not projected to occur before May 2026, if at all. The administration's refusal to use available funds created the legal conflict that led to the Supreme Court's intervention.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson initially granted a temporary stay on Nov. 7, halting full SNAP payments until Tuesday night. However, on Nov. 11, she was the sole justice dissenting from the decision to extend the pause until Thursday night. She indicated she would have required immediate full payment, but the majority extended the stay without explanation.

The Supreme Court's extension came at the eleventh hour as Congress was closing in on a deal to end the shutdown. The Justice Department argued that the lower court orders "injected the federal courts into the political branches' closing efforts to end the shutdown." The court's decision to extend the stay suggests the justices wanted to let the political process resolve the issue rather than ordering spending through judicial action.

Twenty-four states and the governors of Kansas, Kentucky, and Pennsylvania filed a brief as friends of the court stressing the \"weeks of chaos and uncertainty\" created by USDA's changing instructions to states about how much to pay out. Their filing shows how states can use amicus briefs to push the Court to consider the real-world fallout of emergency orders.

After Congress passed a funding bill that fully financed SNAP for the rest of the fiscal year, the Trump administration withdrew its request to keep the stay in place on Nov. 13, effectively mooting the legal dispute. The episode shows how a political deal between Congress and the White House can abruptly end a Supreme Court fight without a final ruling on the underlying power struggle.

Because some states rushed to issue full benefits after McConnell's order while others waited, the Supreme Court's stay froze a patchwork: in a few states, families had already seen full allotments hit their EBT cards, while in others they still had nothing. That uneven map of relief shows how timing differences and legal uncertainty can turn a nominally national program into a state-by-state lottery during a crisis.

The Justice Department told the justices that letting the lower-court orders stand would drag the judiciary into the middle of last-minute talks to end the shutdown, and the Court's brief extension of the stay suggests most justices agreed. Rather than issue a full opinion on whether courts can force agencies to spend particular pots of money, the Court signaled a preference to let a congressional funding deal resolve the fight and leave the core separation-of-powers question for another day.

Ketanji Brown Jackson

Associate Justice, U.S. Supreme Court

She initially granted a short-term administrative stay on Nov. 7 in her role as circuit justice for the First Circuit, which includes Rhode Island, halting full SNAP payments until Tuesday night. On Nov. 11 she was the sole justice dissenting from the decision to extend the pause until Thursday night, signaling that she would have required immediate full payment even as the political branches raced to end the shutdown.

John McConnell

U.S. District Judge, Rhode Island

He ruled on Nov. 6 that the administration must pay full SNAP benefits, finding it acted arbitrarily and capriciously when funding only 65% of typical benefits. He ordered the USDA to tap its $4.6 billion emergency reserve to cover full SNAP costs, but the administration refused. His order was stayed by the Supreme Court, preventing full payments from being made.

Brooke Rollins

Secretary, U.S. Department of Agriculture

She oversees the USDA, which administers SNAP benefits. The department initially planned to halt all November SNAP benefits but later agreed to provide partial benefits using contingency funds. The USDA refused to use Section 32 funds for full SNAP payments, arguing they were needed for child nutrition programs.

Contact state SNAP agencies about benefit status

Call your state's SNAP agency to demand clarity on benefit status and payment processing. Some states issued full benefits before the Supreme Court stay, while others issued partial or no benefits, creating confusion for recipients.