Supreme Court issues emergency order to block full SNAP food aid payments
BOSTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Friday granted the Trump administration’s emergency appeal
to temporarily block a court order to fully fund SNAP food aid payments amid the government shutdown,
even though residents in some states already have received the funds.
https://apnews.com/article/snap-food-government-shutdown-trump-a807e9f0c0a7213e203c074553dc1f9b
@Earl-of-Trumps saidLiberal judges acting like kings…
Supreme Court issues emergency order to block full SNAP food aid payments
BOSTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Friday granted the Trump administration’s emergency appeal
to temporarily block a court order to fully fund SNAP food aid payments amid the government shutdown,
even though residents in some states already have received the funds.
https://apnews.com/article/snap-food-government-shutdown-trump-a807e9f0c0a7213e203c074553dc1f9b
@Mott-The-Hoople saidYou misspelled "Trump Justices Rubber-stamp Removing Food from the Mouths of Poor Children".
Liberal judges acting like kings…
@Earl-of-Trumps saidAnd you actually think this is good news?
Supreme Court issues emergency order to block full SNAP food aid payments
BOSTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Friday granted the Trump administration’s emergency appeal
to temporarily block a court order to fully fund SNAP food aid payments amid the government shutdown,
even though residents in some states already have received the funds.
https://apnews.com/article/snap-food-government-shutdown-trump-a807e9f0c0a7213e203c074553dc1f9b
@no1marauder saidI find this "supremely" hard to believe.
Justice Jackson signed the order.
I wonder what her reasoning could possibly be?
@Suzianne saidThen let me explain.
I find this "supremely" hard to believe.
I wonder what her reasoning could possibly be?
There is an emergency contingency fund built into the SNAP law to cover unexpected shortfalls. At first the Trump administration claimed it could not legally use those funds, but two Federal judges disagreed and issued orders forcing the government to dip into those funds.
BUT:
"In both cases, the judges ordered the government to use one emergency reserve fund containing more than $4.6 billion to pay for SNAP for November but gave it leeway to tap other money to make the full payments, which cost between $8.5 billion and $9 billion each month.
On Monday, the administration said it would not use additional money, saying it was up to Congress to appropriate the funds for the program and that the other money was needed to shore up other child hunger programs."
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/[WORD TOO LONG].
Jackson's order leaves the requirement that the government must use the emergency contingency funds intact, but pauses the second one which said additional funds must be used at least until the Court of Appeals rules on the matter.
My reading of the relevant statutes, admittedly cursory, makes it seem that the second order is unlikely to prevail in the appeals court and thus Justice Jackson is correct.
EDIT: Hate the "Word too Long" BS. Here's a link saying the same thing: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2025/11/07/supreme-court-trump-snap-food-stamps/87156045007/
Here's the order:
"The applicants are seeking a stay of two orders of the United States
District Court for the District of Rhode Island, case No. 1:25-cv-569. See D.
Ct. Minute Entry (Oct. 31, 2025) and Docket Number 34 (Nov. 6, 2025).
These orders require the applicants to fully fund benefits for the
Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (“SNAP” ) for the month of
November, and to distribute that funding by the end of the day on November
7, 2025 (today).
"Earlier today, the applicants asked the United States Court of Appeals
for the First Circuit to stay the District Court’s orders pending appeal, and to
issue an administrative stay to facilitate its consideration of that stay motion.
At 6:08 p.m., the First Circuit denied the applicants’ request for an
administrative stay, but stated that it “intend[s] to issue a decision on [the
stay pending appeal] motion as quickly as possible.” Rhode Island State
Council of Churches v. Rollins, No. 25-2089 (CA1 Nov. 7, 2025).
"The applicants filed an application in this Court this evening,
requesting a stay of the two District Court orders “pending the disposition of
the government’s appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the First
Circuit and, if the court of appeals affirms those orders, pending the timely
filing and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari in this Court.”
Application at 1. The applicants assert that, without intervention from this
Court, they will have to “transfer an estimated $4 billion by tonight” to fund
SNAP benefits through November. Ibid.
"Given the First Circuit’s representations, an administrative stay is
required to facilitate the First Circuit’s expeditious resolution of the pending
stay motion.
"IT IS ORDERED that the District Court’s orders are hereby
administratively stayed pending disposition of the motion for a stay pending
appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in case No.
25-2089 or further order of the undersigned or of the Court. This
administrative stay will terminate forty-eight hours after the First Circuit’s
resolution of the pending motion, which the First Circuit is expected to issue
with dispatch."
/s/ Ketanji Brown Jackson
Associate Justice of the Supreme
Court of the United States
Dated this 7th
day of November, 2025.
(It appears she's given the applicants the benefit of the doubt. -- Suzi)
@Suzianne saidThe "applicants" are the Trump administration.
Here's the order:
"The applicants are seeking a stay of two orders of the United States
District Court for the District of Rhode Island, case No. 1:25-cv-569. See D.
Ct. Minute Entry (Oct. 31, 2025) and Docket Number 34 (Nov. 6, 2025).
These orders require the applicants to fully fund benefits for the
Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (“SNAP&rdquo😉 for the month ...[text shortened]... ovember, 2025.
(It appears she's given the applicants the benefit of the doubt. -- Suzi)
@no1marauder saidHmmmm, interesting.
Then let me explain.
There is an emergency contingency fund built into the SNAP law to cover unexpected shortfalls. At first the Trump administration claimed it could not legally use those funds, but two Federal judges disagreed and issued orders forcing the government to dip into those funds.
BUT:
"In both cases, the judges ordered the government to use one emer ...[text shortened]... at the second order is unlikely to prevail in the appeals court and thus Justice Jackson is correct.
Thanks for the explanation.
It's a funding issue. I've heard others say that replacing the funds taken from other sources to make up the difference might not happen quickly or at all. Jackson's pause seems intended to circumvent this.
Again, what seemed simple has layers unseen at first glance.
@no1marauder saidYes, thus my consternation, but as you've explained, there's more to it than that.
The "applicants" are the Trump administration.
At least the decision is temporary.
@Suzianne saidHere's a clearer explanation:
Hmmmm, interesting.
Thanks for the explanation.
It's a funding issue. I've heard others say that replacing the funds taken from other sources to make up the difference might not happen quickly or at all. Jackson's pause seems intended to circumvent this.
Again, what seemed simple has layers unseen at first glance.
"SNAP’s funding mechanism is a blend of annual and multi-year federal appropriations. Each year, Congress sets aside about $8.6 billion per month to cover both SNAP benefits and the administrative costs for states. For instance, in Fiscal Year 2025, the Consolidated Appropriations Act outlined both regular funding and a special contingency reserve.
Why the contingency reserve? Congress knows that government shutdowns and budget fights happen. To prevent families from going hungry during those periods, lawmakers have set up multi-year contingency funds for SNAP. There is $6 billion available through September 2026 to be tapped “in such amounts and at such times as may become necessary to carry out program operations.” In normal times, these reserves are a backstop. In crisis, they’re supposed to be a lifeline. But as recent litigation has shown, USDA’s discretion in accessing these funds is not always clear-cut.
There’s another, lesser-known funding source: Section 32 of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1935. Section 32 is a permanent appropriation: 30% of customs receipts from imports are set aside by Congress and distributed by USDA for a range of nutrition programs. These funds support initiatives like child nutrition and the Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) program, and can total tens of billions of dollars. Occasionally, in emergencies or when appropriations lapse, USDA has used its discretionary authority under 7 U.S.C. 2257 to keep these core nutrition programs afloat."
https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/law-and-life/the-legal-battle-over-snap-benefit-funding-explained/
So the emergency contingency fund must be used to cover shortfalls. The Section 32 of the AAA funds either can be or must be with the decision in the hands of the Appeals Court. Justice Jackson's order seems to anticipate a rapid decision from that Court but there will surely be an appeal either way.
@no1marauder saidYes, surely. Thank you for the further explanation.
Here's a clearer explanation:
"SNAP’s funding mechanism is a blend of annual and multi-year federal appropriations. Each year, Congress sets aside about $8.6 billion per month to cover both SNAP benefits and the administrative costs for states. For instance, in Fiscal Year 2025, the Consolidated Appropriations Act outlined both regular funding and a special contingency ...[text shortened]... seems to anticipate a rapid decision from that Court but there will surely be an appeal either way.