Supreme Court allows Trump administration to temporarily withhold some SNAP payments for November

[SunSeeker]

Last edited Sat Nov 8, 2025, 01:17 PM - Edit history (1)

Source: NBC News

The Supreme Court on Friday at least temporarily allowed the Trump administration to withhold about $4 billion in payments for the SNAP food benefits program that a federal judge had ordered.

The court via an order issued by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson provisionally blocked an order issued by Rhode Island-based U.S. District Judge John McConnell that required the payments to be made by Friday night.

In her order, Jackson said a temporary stay was required so that the appeals court can consider the government's application in full. Jackson is the justice assigned responsibility for appeals from the Boston-based appeals court.

That court had said in an earlier order that it intends to act "as quickly as possible."



Read more: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/trump-administration-asks-emergency-pause-judges-order-fully-fund-snap-rcna242545

---

As a legal analyst explained, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson did it to avoid a longer stay by the full Court:

All emergency applications are filed in the first instance with the “Circuit Justice” assigned to that particular court of appeals/geographic area. For the Boston-based First Circuit, that’s Justice Jackson. And with one equivocal exception, every “administrative” stay of which I’m aware has come from the Circuit Justice, not the full Court. Thus, the onus was on Justice Jackson to either enter the administrative stay herself, or risk being overruled by the full Court.
...
As for why Justice Jackson did it, to me, the clue is the last sentence. Had Jackson refused to issue an administrative stay, it’s entirely possible (indeed, she may already have known) that a majority of her colleagues were ready to do it themselves. I still think that this is what happened back in April when the full Court intervened shortly before 1 a.m., without explaining why Justice Alito hadn’t, in the A.A.R.P. Alien Enemies Act case. And from Jackson’s perspective, an administrative stay from the full Court would’ve been worse—almost certainly because it would have been open-ended (that is, it would not have had a deadline). The upshot would’ve been that Judge McConnell’s order could’ve remained frozen indefinitely while the full Court took its time. Yesterday’s grant of a stay in Trump v. Orr, for instance, came 48 days after the Justice Department first sought emergency relief.

Instead, by keeping the case for herself and granting the same relief, in contrast, Justice Jackson was able to directly influence the timing in both the First Circuit and the Supreme Court, at least for now. She nudged the First Circuit (which I expect to rule by the end of the weekend, Monday at the latest); and, assuming that court rules against the Trump administration, she also tied her colleagues’ hands—by having her administrative stay expire 48 hours after the First Circuit rules. Of course, the full Court can extend the administrative stay (and Jackson can do it herself). But this way, at least, she’s putting pressure on everyone—the First Circuit and the full Court—to move very quickly in deciding whether or not Judge McConnell’s orders should be allowed to go into effect. From where I’m sitting, that’s why Justice Jackson, the most vocal critic among the justices of the Court’s behavior in Trump-related emergency applications, ruled herself here—rather than allowing the full Court to overrule her. It drastically increases the odds of the full Supreme Court resolving this issue by the end of next week—one way or the other.

https://www.stevevladeck.com/p/190-snap-wtf

[elleng]

1. DAMN!

(I understand the rationale, but DAMN anyway!)

[angrychair]

11. The only rationale

Is rich entitled assholes don't care if children starve. Fuck her. Just another rich asshole feeding at the money trough.

[flashman13]

16. Would you prefer another unsigned shadow docket decision with no possibility of reversal?

We are lucky that this was brought in her jurisdiction because if it was in Alito's or Thomas' jurisdiction they would have said something about Article II and let Trump do whatever the hell he wanted to do.

[elleng]

23. Thanks.

[AllaN01Bear]

19. ""

[Polybius]

2. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson issued the stay

[Fiendish Thingy]

20. It was a strategic move

Her ruling forces the lower court to act quickly, and prevented the full SCOTUS from issuing an indefinite stay pending appeal.

[SunSeeker]

21. As a legal analyst explained, she did it to avoid a longer stay by the full Court.

All emergency applications are filed in the first instance with the “Circuit Justice” assigned to that particular court of appeals/geographic area. For the Boston-based First Circuit, that’s Justice Jackson. And with one equivocal exception, every “administrative” stay of which I’m aware has come from the Circuit Justice, not the full Court. Thus, the onus was on Justice Jackson to either enter the administrative stay herself, or risk being overruled by the full Court.
...
As for why Justice Jackson did it, to me, the clue is the last sentence. Had Jackson refused to issue an administrative stay, it’s entirely possible (indeed, she may already have known) that a majority of her colleagues were ready to do it themselves. I still think that this is what happened back in April when the full Court intervened shortly before 1 a.m., without explaining why Justice Alito hadn’t, in the A.A.R.P. Alien Enemies Act case. And from Jackson’s perspective, an administrative stay from the full Court would’ve been worse—almost certainly because it would have been open-ended (that is, it would not have had a deadline). The upshot would’ve been that Judge McConnell’s order could’ve remained frozen indefinitely while the full Court took its time. Yesterday’s grant of a stay in Trump v. Orr, for instance, came 48 days after the Justice Department first sought emergency relief.

Instead, by keeping the case for herself and granting the same relief, in contrast, Justice Jackson was able to directly influence the timing in both the First Circuit and the Supreme Court, at least for now. She nudged the First Circuit (which I expect to rule by the end of the weekend, Monday at the latest); and, assuming that court rules against the Trump administration, she also tied her colleagues’ hands—by having her administrative stay expire 48 hours after the First Circuit rules. Of course, the full Court can extend the administrative stay (and Jackson can do it herself). But this way, at least, she’s putting pressure on everyone—the First Circuit and the full Court—to move very quickly in deciding whether or not Judge McConnell’s orders should be allowed to go into effect. From where I’m sitting, that’s why Justice Jackson, the most vocal critic among the justices of the Court’s behavior in Trump-related emergency applications, ruled herself here—rather than allowing the full Court to overrule her. It drastically increases the odds of the full Supreme Court resolving this issue by the end of next week—one way or the other.

https://www.stevevladeck.com/p/190-snap-wtf

[elleng]

26. Thanks

[A Badger]

30. Thanks

...for that.

[SheltieLover]

3. Fuck this

Can't the hungry people's needs come before slobby's desire to cause pain?.

[valleyrogue]

4. It's a technicality, a procedural thing.

I mean THIS justice would NOT be in favor of starving people.

[Bmoboy]

5. Yet the starving will occur

[calimary]

29. Fouled on a technicality?

A shame that it has to involve people who don't get enough to eat.

[NotHardly]

10. F*ck procedure when it f*cks people

Waiting for a lower court decision, oh sweet summer child, people's lives, security, health, children's lives, folks health, residence security, welfare are NOT temporary pause capable.

I am old enough to remember the story about an American history professor was interviewing the then head of South African president/PM was asked "How many white South Africans are they, and he responded 2.5 million. The professor then asked how many black South Africans are there and the president/PM responded 24.5 million. After a thoughtful pause, the professor asked, "Does the name Custer mean anything to you.
?

[elleng]

13. Right.

I wish that more readers would recognize distinctions between procedural and substantive; important, and many SHOULD recognize such distinctions.

[C_U_L8R]

6. If the court can move quickly and not inflict harm on hungry families

Then it may be a good thing to make the Trumps stand up and publicly defend why they want to steal people’s food.

[Trueblue1968]

7. Horrible

[NotHardly]

8. 42 million about to die of "temporary" denial of food

Damn the 'rationale', people will starve, children will starve 'temporarily' except the deaths and deprivation will be permanent. So will the hate this ruling generates, so will the disrespect and historical degradation of the reputation of the (not so much) Supreme Court.

The average dollars$$$ received by a SNAP recipient is less than $170.00 a month... let me repeat that less than 170.00 a month and now they want to give maybe 65% of that which means a recipient they receive $110.00... wanna live on $110.00 of groceries a month?

That is $27.50 a week. So called government "aid". That is a lot of gruel and turnip soup, if you are lucky to have your Social Security, Walmart greeter wages, minimum wage job and Food Bank or dumpster diving lets you keep you housing.

I'm old enough to remember when we laughed at Russian solders were stealing toilets from Ukrainian families because they didn't have them in their own homes. Not the plumbing, which they did not understand, just the toilets so they no longer had do squat to take shit.

[angrychair]

9. Fuck all the SCOTUS

Bunch of entitled assholes. Rich, entitled assholes letting children starve to appease that psychopath.
We are so fucking screwed.

[Polybius]

31. All?

[BComplex]

12. So much for "pro life". Screw every single one of these right wing assholes.

They HATE the people of this country, starting with women.

[hamsterjill]

14. So, someone please define "temporary" for me and "as quickly as possible".

Someone is being told not to starve over the weekend, right? I mean, if someone is already hungry tonight because they don't have any food, they are now expected to wait until at least Monday? Because the court won't be in session again until then???

This absolutely sucks. People starving in the richest nation on earth is a no brainer. Bring all of the justices to the court NOW and take care of this. Let the justices lose a little sleep. It might do them some good.

[Bev54]

15. Here is a video that explains it a bit better

[hamsterjill]

17. Thanks for this.

Sincerely, thanks for posting.

But one minute of someone having to wait is too long. This is one instance where legal wrangling needs to be common sense; not stand on principle. I am very disappointed in Justice Brown.

[onenote]

32. So you are disappointed that she didn't deny the request which would have allowed Thomas to grant it

and extend it for a much longer time?

I think you should re-think your thinking.

[Fiendish Thingy]

18. There are several newer threads that provide significantly more information and context

Jackson made the best strategic move possible under the circumstances, rather than let the full court take over and block SNAP for an undetermined length of time, she forced the lower court to act quickly.

[SunSeeker]

25. Correct. Jackson made the best of a bad situation.

All emergency applications are filed in the first instance with the “Circuit Justice” assigned to that particular court of appeals/geographic area. For the Boston-based First Circuit, that’s Justice Jackson. And with one equivocal exception, every “administrative” stay of which I’m aware has come from the Circuit Justice, not the full Court. Thus, the onus was on Justice Jackson to either enter the administrative stay herself, or risk being overruled by the full Court.
...
As for why Justice Jackson did it, to me, the clue is the last sentence. Had Jackson refused to issue an administrative stay, it’s entirely possible (indeed, she may already have known) that a majority of her colleagues were ready to do it themselves. I still think that this is what happened back in April when the full Court intervened shortly before 1 a.m., without explaining why Justice Alito hadn’t, in the A.A.R.P. Alien Enemies Act case. And from Jackson’s perspective, an administrative stay from the full Court would’ve been worse—almost certainly because it would have been open-ended (that is, it would not have had a deadline). The upshot would’ve been that Judge McConnell’s order could’ve remained frozen indefinitely while the full Court took its time. Yesterday’s grant of a stay in Trump v. Orr, for instance, came 48 days after the Justice Department first sought emergency relief.

Instead, by keeping the case for herself and granting the same relief, in contrast, Justice Jackson was able to directly influence the timing in both the First Circuit and the Supreme Court, at least for now. She nudged the First Circuit (which I expect to rule by the end of the weekend, Monday at the latest); and, assuming that court rules against the Trump administration, she also tied her colleagues’ hands—by having her administrative stay expire 48 hours after the First Circuit rules. Of course, the full Court can extend the administrative stay (and Jackson can do it herself). But this way, at least, she’s putting pressure on everyone—the First Circuit and the full Court—to move very quickly in deciding whether or not Judge McConnell’s orders should be allowed to go into effect. From where I’m sitting, that’s why Justice Jackson, the most vocal critic among the justices of the Court’s behavior in Trump-related emergency applications, ruled herself here—rather than allowing the full Court to overrule her. It drastically increases the odds of the full Supreme Court resolving this issue by the end of next week—one way or the other.

https://www.stevevladeck.com/p/190-snap-wtf

[AllaN01Bear]

22. ""

[C Moon]

27. They just keep digging themselves in deeper and deeper for the mid-terms.

More No Kings protests, so we can keep these creeps in the pot.

[orangecrush]

28. MOTHERFUCKERS

[republianmushroom]

33. SHAME !

But, it is the roberts court.