In a unforeseen late-night ruling, Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson issued an emergency 'administrative stay' late last night, temporarily blocking a federal judge's order that had compelled the Trump administration to provide full November SNAP (food stamp) benefits by the end of the day.

The move, which came just minutes before a deadline imposed by the lower court, pauses a ruling that would have required the administration to transfer billions of dollars from a separate child nutrition fund to cover the SNAP shortfall caused by the government shutdown.

This high-stakes legal battle leaves approximately 42 million Americans in a state of profound uncertainty. While some states rushed to disburse the full benefits on Friday, millions of others are now in limbo, waiting to see if their food assistance will arrive at all.

The Core of the Conflict: A Federal Judge vs. The White House

The crisis escalated rapidly over the last 48 hours. Here is a breakdown of the events that led to the Supreme Court's intervention:

  1. The Shutdown Shortfall: Due to the ongoing government shutdown, Congress has not appropriated funds for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) for November. The administration stated its contingency reserve of approximately $4.6 billion was only enough to cover partial benefits, not the full $9 billion required.
  2. The District Court Order: On Thursday, U.S. District Judge John J. McConnell Jr. of Rhode Island, overseeing a lawsuit from a coalition of cities and nonprofits, rejected the partial-payment plan. He issued an order compelling the administration to provide full benefits by the end of the day Friday, November 7.
  3. The "Raided" Fund: Critically, Judge McConnell’s order directed the administration to cover the $4+ billion shortfall by tapping a separate fund known as "Section 32 Child Nutrition Funds," a reserve derived from tariffs.
  4. The Administration's Appeal: The Trump administration's lawyers immediately filed an emergency appeal. Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued that Judge McConnell’s order "makes a mockery of the separation of powers" by seizing Congress's "power of the purse." The appeal warned that allowing a single judge to "raid an entirely different program" would invite a "run on the bank by way of judicial fiat."

A Day of Chaos and Confusion

Friday was marked by whiplash for state agencies and SNAP recipients.

After the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals initially declined to pause Judge McConnell's order, the USDA sent guidance to states that it was "working towards implementing... full benefit issuances."

Taking this as a green light, several states—including California, Wisconsin, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Washington—raced to disburse the full November benefits. The administration later argued in its Supreme Court filing that these states were "trying to seize what they could of the agency's finite set of remaining funds."

Then, late Friday night, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson—who is the Justice assigned to handle emergency applications from the 1st Circuit—issued her stay. This order effectively froze any further payments, forcing states like Michigan to halt their distribution process.

What This Is (and What It Isn't)

It is crucial to understand that the Justice's order is not a final ruling on the legality of the case.

An administrative stay is a short-term, temporary pause. Its sole purpose is to give the appellate court (in this case, the 1st Circuit) enough time to consider the administration's more formal request for a stay pending appeal—a longer-term pause that would last while the full case is argued.

The administrative stay will expire 48 hours after the 1st Circuit issues its decision, which is expected "expeditiously."

What Happens Next

All eyes are now on the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. That court must now rule on whether to grant the administration's request for a longer pause.

If the 1st Circuit grants the stay, full SNAP benefits will remain frozen, and the partial-payment plan will likely move forward, pending a full appeal. If it denies the stay, the administration's only recourse would be to appeal again to the full Supreme Court.

For now, the immediate delivery of full food benefits to millions of Americans—including children, seniors, and people with disabilities—hangs in the balance of a profound constitutional question over who controls the nation's wallet during a shutdown: Congress, the President, or the courts.