The Supreme Court blocks a lower-court order requiring the Trump administration to restore full SNAP benefits, deepening the nationwide fight over food aid amid the prolonged government shutdown.
High court pauses food-aid ruling amid shutdown dispute
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday, November 7, 2025, temporarily blocked a lower-court order that required the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) under President Donald Trump’s administration to fully reinstate Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits during the ongoing federal government shutdown.
The one-page order, issued by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, stays a Rhode Island federal court ruling that directed the USDA to use contingency funds to restore full monthly food-stamp payments. The stay remains in effect while the administration pursues its appeal before the First Circuit Court of Appeals.
The decision leaves millions of low-income Americans uncertain when their complete benefits will resume as the shutdown continues into its sixth week.
Coalition of states challenges suspension of food aid
On October 28, a coalition of 26 states and the District of Columbia filed a federal lawsuit in Massachusetts, accusing the USDA of violating the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 and the Administrative Procedure Act by halting November SNAP payments despite having billions in contingency funds.
The coalition is led by California Attorney General Rob Bonta, New York Attorney General Letitia James, and Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Campbell. The other participating states are Nevada, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, and the District of Columbia.
“Millions of Americans are about to go hungry because the federal government has chosen to withhold food assistance it is legally obligated to provide,” said Attorney General Letitia James in a statement announcing the lawsuit.
Lower court ordered funding before appeal
On November 6, U.S. District Judge John J. McConnell Jr. in Providence ruled that the USDA must restore full SNAP benefits immediately, calling its refusal “an abdication of statutory duty.”
The administration appealed the same day, arguing that only Congress can appropriate funds for federal programs. The USDA said it would issue partial benefits for November while awaiting further legal guidance, citing restrictions on how contingency reserves may be used.
Millions affected nationwide
SNAP, the nation’s largest food-assistance program, supports about 42 million Americans each month, with an average household benefit of $230 per person, according to USDA data. If the shutdown persists, November could mark the first time since 1964 that benefits are delayed or reduced nationwide.
In California, around 5.5 million residents rely on CalFresh, which provides roughly $1.1 billion in food aid monthly. In Nevada, about 500,000 residents depend on SNAP benefits.
“Contingency funds exist for this exact scenario, yet the USDA has decided to abdicate its responsibility to Nevadans,” said Nevada Attorney General Aaron Ford, calling the federal decision “deliberate, cruel, and extraordinarily harmful.”
Federal stance and growing debate
The USDA, led by Secretary Charles Herbert, maintains that contingency funds cannot be used for regular monthly payments and insists that new appropriations must come from Congress. The department continues to fund WIC (Women, Infants, and Children) programs under separate authority.
White House officials said the administration “will not violate appropriations law” and called on Congress to pass a spending bill to reopen the government. Lawmakers from both parties have since introduced the Keep SNAP Funded Act, a proposal to guarantee uninterrupted food aid during any future shutdowns.
Food insecurity concerns rise
Food banks across the country are reporting surges in demand, and grocers warn that prolonged disruption of SNAP payments could harm local economies, particularly in rural and low-income communities.
Economists and policy analysts say the case could set a precedent defining how essential safety-net programs operate during political stalemates. For now, the Supreme Court’s stay keeps full benefits on hold while legal and legislative efforts continue.
