Trump Admin Tries To Recall SNAP Benefits

The Trump administration returned to the Supreme Court seeking to keep full November SNAP payments frozen during the shutdown, despite multiple lower-court rulings directing the government to pay full benefits. The administration argues that complying now would unlawfully override Congress’ spending power and strain limited contingency funds; challengers (states and nonprofits) counter that the government has both legal authority and practical means to ensure full, on-time benefits and that withholding them causes immediate harm to roughly 42 million recipients.

Procedurally, the litigation has moved quickly. After a Rhode Island district court ordered full funding by Friday, Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson granted a temporary administrative pause to let the First Circuit weigh in. Over the weekend, some states (often with Democratic governors) loaded full benefits while others held or issued partial payments pending guidance, producing uneven access. On Sunday night, a First Circuit panel (opinion by Judge Julie Rikelman) declined to halt the full-funding order, emphasizing the widespread harm from disruption to food aid. The administration then renewed its request at the Supreme Court; a ruling is expected Tuesday. Meanwhile, a Massachusetts district judge (Indira Talwani) temporarily blocked USDA’s weekend instruction that states “undo” any steps taken to issue full benefits, preserving the status quo pending a hearing.

On the ground, the policy whiplash is acute. Some families report skipping meals and encountering retail refusals, as grocers fear non-reimbursement amid federal uncertainty. States that fronted money saw reimbursement questions, and vendors faced technical and cash-flow issues. Administratively, USDA has said partial payments require complicated state-system recoding, which could take weeks—undercutting the argument that reduced benefits are the “easier” interim option.

Legally, the dispute turns on emergency-funding authority and judicial power during a shutdown. Lower courts have found the equities favor recipients, directing the government to use available funds (including contingency or other reserves) to meet November obligations. The administration frames that as an impermissible judicial intrusion into appropriations. The First Circuit’s framing, however, highlighted irreparable harm to households and the feasibility of paying full benefits now while broader funding questions progress.

Politically, the fight intersects with shutdown dynamics in Congress. The Solicitor General signaled that pending Hill action might resolve the immediate funding gap and reimburse states that advanced their own funds—suggesting the court fight could be overtaken by events if a deal passes quickly. Still, the litigation sets a precedent for how SNAP is handled in future shutdowns.

Main points

• Status: Lower courts ordered full November SNAP payments; a brief Supreme Court pause allowed appeals review; the First Circuit declined to block the order; the administration renewed its SCOTUS request to keep full payments frozen pending appeal.
• Impact: Patchwork payments (full, partial, or delayed) led to uneven access, retailer uncertainty, and reports of families skipping meals.
• USDA directive: Weekend memo told states to “undo” full benefits; a federal judge temporarily blocked that instruction.
• Scale: SNAP serves ~42 million people; monthly costs run $8.5–9B.

Projections

• Near term: If SCOTUS extends the freeze, expect more partial/discretionary payments and legal maneuvering; if it denies the stay, states will race to complete full disbursements, with back-end reimbursements pivotal.
• Operational: Even with go-aheads, state EBT systems and vendor processing may cause staggered timing and localized retailer acceptance issues for several days.
• Policy precedent: Regardless of outcome, expect bipartisan pressure for shutdown-proof safety-net funding mechanisms (automatic appropriations for SNAP) to avoid future crises.

References (original + additional)

• Original user-provided article text (summary of current filings and impacts).
• Reuters: Judge orders full funding; appeals and SCOTUS activity; USDA “undo” memo; First Circuit & renewed stay bid. Reuters+4Reuters+4Reuters+4
• Washington Post: First Circuit denies halt to full payments; shutdown context. The Washington Post
• AP News: SCOTUS administrative pause (Jackson) and state payment split. AP News
• ABC News: Temporary Supreme Court pause details. ABC News
• PBS NewsHour / AP: Renewed SCOTUS appeal; likely decision timing. PBS+1
• Courthouse News / Roll Call: First Circuit opinion highlights and quotes. Courthouse News+1
• KCRA / Spectrum Local: USDA statements about paying while appealing (subsequently overtaken by later filings). KCRA+1