BREAKING: Supreme Court Halts Full SNAP Benefits for 42 Million Americans—Families Left in Crisis as Government Shutdown Enters Day 38

Writer: Joeziel Vazquez, CEO & Board Certified Credit Consultant (BCCC, CCSC, CCRS, FCRA Certified Professional)

17 Years Experience in Consumer Finance & Credit

Published: November 7, 2025 | Reading Time: 12 minutes

Bottom Line Up Front

Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson issued an emergency administrative stay Friday night, temporarily blocking a federal judge's order that would have required the Trump administration to provide full SNAP benefits to 42 million Americans by end of day. This leaves millions of families—including 16 million children—facing food insecurity with partial or no benefits as the government shutdown reaches day 38. Some states had already begun issuing full payments before the Supreme Court intervened, creating a confusing patchwork of benefit distribution across America.

The fate of America's largest food assistance program hung in the balance Friday night as Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson delivered a crushing blow to 42 million Americans waiting for their November food stamp benefits. In an emergency order issued at approximately 9:30 PM EST, Jackson temporarily halted a federal judge's directive that would have guaranteed full SNAP payments by midnight—leaving millions of families, including 16 million children, in limbo as the historic government shutdown entered its 38th day.

The whiplash decision caps a chaotic 48 hours that saw food assistance yanked back and forth between federal courts, with some states racing to distribute benefits while others held back, creating a patchwork crisis where a family's ability to eat this month may depend entirely on which state they live in.

A Federal Judge's Rebuke Becomes a Supreme Court Showdown

The legal earthquake began Thursday afternoon in a Rhode Island courtroom, where U.S. District Judge John McConnell Jr. issued one of the most scathing judicial rebukes of the Trump administration to date. McConnell didn't just order the government to pay full SNAP benefits for November—he accused President Trump of openly defying court authority.

"Without SNAP funding for the month of November, 16 million children are immediately at risk of going hungry," Judge McConnell wrote, his words heavy with urgency. "This should never happen in America."

The judge pointed directly to a Truth Social post Trump had published just days earlier, where the president declared: "SNAP payments will be given only when the Radical Left Democrats open up government, which they can easily do, and not before!" McConnell characterized this as Trump stating "his intent to defy" the court's authority—a remarkable accusation for a federal judge to level at a sitting president.

The ruling came after weeks of escalating tension over the administration's unprecedented decision to suspend food stamp payments during the shutdown. Unlike every previous government shutdown in modern history—including the 35-day closure during Trump's first term—this administration took the extraordinary step of halting SNAP entirely, arguing the courts had no power to force spending decisions during a congressional funding impasse.

McConnell wasn't buying it. He ruled the Trump administration had "failed to consider the harms individuals who rely on those benefits would suffer" and acted "arbitrarily and capriciously" in refusing to tap available emergency funds. His order was clear: deliver full benefits to every American household by end of day Friday, November 7, or face contempt.

Friday Morning: A Sudden Reversal

By Friday morning, something unexpected happened. The U.S. Department of Agriculture, which had spent weeks arguing it couldn't possibly fund SNAP during the shutdown, suddenly reversed course. In a memo obtained by news outlets, USDA Deputy Undersecretary Patrick Penn informed states the agency would "complete the processes necessary" to fully issue SNAP benefits for November.

The funds could be available later that day, Penn wrote.

States erupted into action. Wisconsin moved first, distributing a staggering $104.4 million to 337,137 households before lunch. Kansas followed with $31.6 million flowing to 86,000 families. Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Vermont, Massachusetts, and New York all announced they were processing or preparing to process full November allotments. After days of uncertainty that had sent millions to food banks and left EBT cards with zero balances, relief seemed finally at hand.

But the Trump administration wasn't done fighting.

The Appeals Court Says No—Then the Supreme Court Says Wait

Even as states distributed benefits Friday afternoon, Justice Department lawyers were racing to federal appeals court in Boston, demanding an emergency halt to Judge McConnell's order. Their argument centered on constitutional separation of powers: courts cannot tell the executive branch how to spend money during a government shutdown, especially when Congress hasn't appropriated the funds.

A three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit considered the request and delivered a unanimous answer: denied. The lower court's order would stand—for now. The panel indicated it would continue examining the legal questions, but it wasn't prepared to leave families without food while it deliberated.

That's when the case landed on Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's desk.

As the Supreme Court justice assigned to handle emergency appeals from the First Circuit, Jackson faced an impossible choice with a midnight deadline looming. Grant the Trump administration's request and millions go hungry. Deny it and potentially allow what the government claimed was unconstitutional judicial overreach.

She split the difference with an "administrative stay"—a temporary pause designed to give the appeals court breathing room to make a proper decision. "Given the First Circuit's representations, an administrative stay is required to facilitate the First Circuit's expeditious resolution of the pending stay motion," Jackson wrote in her terse order.

The stay will last 48 hours after the appeals court rules, which Jackson said must happen "with dispatch." Translation: the appeals court has roughly two days to decide whether millions of Americans eat this month.

Chaos on the Ground: Some Ate, Others Wait

Jackson's 9:30 PM intervention created a surreal situation where Americans' access to food became a matter of geographic and temporal luck. If you lived in Wisconsin, Kansas, New Jersey, Vermont, or Pennsylvania and your benefits were processed before Jackson's order came down, you got your full November allotment. If you lived in Massachusetts or New York, where distribution was scheduled for the weekend, you're now in limbo. If you lived in North Carolina, you got 65% of your normal benefits Friday morning with promises of more to come—promises now uncertain.

The confusion extends beyond individual households to state governments scrambling to figure out what they're legally required to do. According to Solicitor General D. John Sauer's filing to the Supreme Court, Wisconsin's rush to comply with the lower court order caused the state to overdraw its federal letter of credit by $20 million. Kansas issued benefits before the USDA had finalized distribution procedures. States that moved cautiously, waiting for clear federal guidance, may now find themselves unable to access even partial funding under the prior court order.

It's a recipe for chaos that has left families checking their EBT balances obsessively, unsure whether today's zero balance will become tomorrow's $300 deposit or remain empty for another week—or month.

The $9 Billion Question: Where Does the Money Come From?

At the heart of this legal battle is a deceptively simple question: during a government shutdown, who decides how available federal money gets spent?

The math itself isn't complicated. November SNAP benefits cost approximately $9 billion. The SNAP program has a contingency fund with $5.3 billion—enough to cover about 65% of the month's costs. There's another pot of money called Section 32 funds, built from tariff revenue and designated for child nutrition programs, with more than $4 billion sitting unused.

Judge McConnell looked at these numbers and concluded the solution was obvious: use both funding sources to feed hungry Americans. The administration has over $23 billion in related nutrition program funds, he noted. Child nutrition programs like WIC need only about $3 billion monthly to operate. There's plenty of money to go around without harming other programs.

The Trump administration sees it completely differently. Using Section 32 funds would "rob Peter to pay Paul," they argue, taking money desperately needed for school lunches and nutrition programs for women and infants. More fundamentally, they contend courts have no constitutional authority to direct spending priorities during a shutdown—that power belongs exclusively to the executive branch and Congress.

"Courts hold neither the power to appropriate nor the power to spend," the Justice Department argued in its Supreme Court filing. Judge McConnell's order, they claimed, "makes a mockery of the separation of powers" by requiring USDA to find "$4 billion in the metaphorical couch cushions."

Democracy Forward, the legal advocacy group representing cities and nonprofits in the lawsuit, called this argument absurd. "The court could not be more clear," said president and CEO Skye Perryman. "The Trump-Vance administration must stop playing politics with people's lives by delaying SNAP payments they are obligated to issue."

Vice President JD Vance weighed in Thursday, defending the administration's position that courts shouldn't dictate presidential spending. The decision on how to allocate scarce resources during a shutdown, Vance argued, is fundamentally political—and therefore belongs with elected officials, not judges.

Real People, Real Hunger, Real Desperation

While constitutional scholars debate separation of powers, Jasmen Youngbey is trying to figure out how to feed her two sons. The single mother attending college in Newark, New Jersey, checked her SNAP balance Friday morning: $0.

"Not everybody has cash to pull out and say, 'OK, I'm going to go and get this,' especially with the cost of food right now," she told reporters while waiting in line at a food pantry with her 7-month-old and 4-year-old. By Friday evening, her benefits had arrived—likely one of the lucky ones whose state processed payments before the Supreme Court intervened.

A few people behind her in that same Newark food line stood Tihinna Franklin, a school bus guard with 9 cents in her SNAP account. She had three items left in her freezer and grandchildren depending on her. The roughly $290 she receives monthly in benefits isn't luxury money—it's survival. Her paycheck covers rent, electricity, and basic necessities. Food comes from SNAP.

"If I don't get it, I won't be eating," Franklin said simply. "My money I get paid for, that goes to the bills, rent, electricity, personal items."

Multiply Franklin and Youngbey by 42 million and you begin to grasp the scale of this crisis. That's roughly one in eight Americans—a population larger than California—whose ability to eat this month became a legal football tossed between courts. Among them are 16 million children who had no say in the political standoff that put them at risk of hunger.

The shutdown's toll on vulnerable Americans has been mounting for weeks, as detailed in our previous coverage of Day 27's critical survival resources and the mass federal worker layoffs that have compounded the crisis.

A First in Modern American History

What makes this SNAP suspension particularly remarkable is its novelty. The United States has experienced 22 government shutdowns since 1976, when the modern budget process was established. Some lasted days, others weeks. The longest—35 days from December 2018 to January 2019 during Trump's first term—caused enormous disruption across the federal government.

But every single previous administration, Democratic and Republican alike, continued SNAP benefits during shutdowns. The program was considered essential infrastructure, like air traffic control or border security—something you just didn't shut down, even when everything else ground to halt.

The Trump administration broke that norm on October 24, when USDA announced November benefits simply wouldn't be distributed. The stated reason was straightforward: Congress hadn't appropriated the money, so there was no legal authority to spend it.

Previous administrations had interpreted the law differently, finding authority to continue mandatory spending programs even without new appropriations. But this administration saw an opportunity to apply pressure in the broader political fight over government funding. If SNAP stops, the thinking went, Democrats would feel more urgency to make a deal.

What followed was three weeks of legal warfare that exposed a previously unexamined question: can the president use food assistance for 42 million Americans as leverage in budget negotiations?

Three Pathways Forward, None of Them Good

The First Circuit Court of Appeals now faces an unenviable task. Within roughly 48 hours, they must decide whether to affirm Judge McConnell's order (forcing full SNAP payments) or grant the administration's request for a stay pending appeal (leaving Americans with partial benefits or none at all while litigation continues).

If they affirm the lower court, full benefits should flow within days—assuming states can navigate the administrative chaos and the Supreme Court doesn't intervene again. This seems moderately likely given the three-judge panel already unanimously denied the administration's emergency request Friday, suggesting skepticism of the government's constitutional arguments.

If they grant the stay, millions of Americans will receive at best 65% of their normal benefits while the case winds through months of appeals. Families budgeting $350 monthly for groceries would suddenly have $228, with inflation-era food prices making that shortfall impossible to navigate. The credit damage alone would be staggering as families choose between eating and paying other bills—a dynamic I've seen devastate credit scores during every major economic crisis in my 17 years in consumer finance.

The third possibility is that this case ultimately lands before the full Supreme Court for consideration of the underlying constitutional question: during government shutdowns, can federal judges compel spending from available funds to continue mandatory programs, or does that violate separation of powers? That would likely take months to resolve and could reshape how future shutdowns operate.

None of these pathways offers quick relief to families whose refrigerators are empty now.

What New York Said That Everyone's Thinking

New York Attorney General Letitia James, whose state is party to a separate lawsuit seeking full SNAP funding, issued a statement Friday night that captured the raw frustration many Americans feel watching this legal ping-pong while people go hungry.

"This decision is a tragedy for the millions of Americans who rely on SNAP to feed their families," James said of Jackson's order. "It is disgraceful that the Trump administration chose to fight this in court instead of fulfilling its responsibility to the American people. Every day the federal government delays is another day that children, seniors, and families face real pain and suffering."

The statement reflects a broader question about what government shutdowns have become. Originally conceived as temporary pauses while Congress worked out budget disagreements, shutdowns increasingly feel weaponized—tools for extracting political concessions by inflicting maximum pain on vulnerable populations. The One Big Beautiful Bill Act and its implementation challenges have only deepened this crisis.

When air traffic controllers were furloughed during the 2018-2019 shutdown and flight delays mounted, the shutdown ended within days. When federal workers missed paychecks and food banks for government employees appeared, public pressure forced resolution. The assumption has always been that if things got bad enough, political leaders would find a way to compromise.

But threatening food security for 42 million people, including 16 million children, represents a new threshold. It tests whether there are any limits to what can be used as leverage in budget negotiations.

The Financial Domino Effect Nobody's Talking About

As someone who has spent 17 years helping people rebuild credit after financial catastrophes—and who personally lost $1,847 to credit repair fraud in 2008—I'm watching a secondary crisis develop that most news coverage is missing.

Food insecurity doesn't just mean empty stomachs. It means impossible financial choices that create cascading damage for years. When families can't buy groceries with SNAP, they don't just go hungry. They make devastating decisions: use high-interest credit cards to buy food, skip rent payments, ignore utility bills, take out payday loans at predatory rates.

Each of these decisions triggers consequences that compound. A missed rent payment becomes an eviction threat. An unpaid utility bill becomes a shutoff notice. A maxed-out credit card becomes a collections account. A payday loan becomes a debt trap.

The credit damage from these crisis decisions can take years to repair. I've seen it repeatedly through economic downturns, natural disasters, and the COVID-19 pandemic. People who made perfectly rational decisions to feed their children end up with destroyed credit scores that lock them out of housing, employment, and financial services for years afterward.

That's why immediate action matters. Families need to know right now whether their SNAP benefits are coming so they can make informed decisions about November. Waiting for courts to resolve constitutional questions over weeks or months while people exhaust savings, max out credit, and fall behind on bills creates a crisis that will outlast whatever legal resolution eventually emerges.

If you're facing impossible choices between food and other bills, document everything—screenshots of zero EBT balances, records of when you applied for emergency food assistance, receipts showing increased out-of-pocket costs. This documentation may be critical for future legal claims or when seeking forbearance from creditors. And reach out to local food banks immediately through FeedingAmerica.org—don't wait until you've depleted every other resource.

Where This Goes From Here

The appeals court has its orders: rule quickly. Justice Jackson's administrative stay expires 48 hours after they issue their decision, putting enormous pressure on the three-judge panel to act decisively.

The best-case scenario is a quick affirmation of the lower court order, triggering full SNAP distributions nationwide within days. States have already demonstrated they can move quickly when authorized—Wisconsin and Kansas proved that Friday.

The worst-case scenario is a protracted legal battle that keeps food assistance in limbo for weeks or months while hungry families exhaust every other resource. Given that we're already 38 days into a government shutdown with no end in sight, this scenario feels increasingly plausible.

The middle-ground scenario—partial benefits continuing while litigation proceeds—leaves 42 million Americans trying to survive on 65% of their normal food budget during a period of elevated prices. For families already spending every dollar of their SNAP benefits, a 35% cut isn't belt-tightening. It's choosing which meals to skip.

What happens next depends partly on legal arguments about administrative law and constitutional powers. But it depends more on whether enough political pressure builds to either end the shutdown entirely or create a special appropriation for SNAP benefits regardless of the broader budget impasse.

So far, that pressure hasn't materialized. The shutdown has stretched longer than all but one in American history, federal workers have faced military pay crises and mass layoffs, and now 42 million Americans don't know if they'll eat this month. Yet Congress remains deadlocked.

Friday night's Supreme Court intervention guarantees at least two more days of uncertainty. For Jasmen Youngbey, Tihinna Franklin, and millions like them, that's two more days of not knowing whether to ration what's left in the pantry or hope that relief is coming.

The First Circuit Court of Appeals now holds the answer. By Monday or Tuesday, we'll know whether families eat this month—or whether the courts have decided that question belongs to someone else.

What SNAP Recipients Should Do Right Now

Check your EBT balance immediately. If you received full benefits already, your state likely processed before the Supreme Court stay. If your balance is still zero or shows only partial payment, you're in the group waiting for the appeals court decision. Visit your state's EBT website or call the customer service number on your card for the most current information specific to your situation.

Contact local food banks today, not tomorrow. Don't wait until you run out of food to seek emergency assistance. Visit FeedingAmerica.org to find resources near you, or call the Feeding America National Hotline at 1-800-984-3663. Many food banks have expanded hours specifically because of this crisis, and you typically don't need documentation to receive help.

Document everything. Take screenshots of your EBT balance daily. Save any notifications from your state about benefits. Keep receipts if you're forced to spend personal money on groceries you normally cover with SNAP. This documentation may be critical if class-action lawsuits emerge or if you need to show creditors why you fell behind on other bills.

If you face choices between food and other bills, reach out to creditors proactively. Many utilities, landlords, and credit card companies have hardship programs that can provide temporary relief—but only if you contact them before you miss payments. Explain the SNAP situation and ask about forbearance or payment plans. This is infinitely better than having missed payments reported to credit bureaus.

Never use payday loans or high-interest credit to buy groceries. The temporary relief isn't worth the long-term financial destruction these products cause. Seek food banks, community assistance, and charitable resources instead.

For comprehensive guidance on navigating the shutdown's financial impacts, see our complete government shutdown financial survival guide.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: Will I receive my November SNAP benefits?

A: As of November 7, 2025, the situation is unclear. Some states already distributed full benefits before the Supreme Court stay. Others are waiting for the First Circuit Court of Appeals to rule within the next 48 hours. Check your state's EBT website or call the customer service number for the most current information.

Q: How much in SNAP benefits will I receive for November?

A: This depends on when your state processed payments: If your state distributed benefits Friday before approximately 9:30 PM EST, you likely received full benefits. If your state hasn't distributed yet, you may receive 65% of normal benefits (partial payment) or full benefits, depending on court rulings. Minimum allotments for 1-2 person households are approximately $16 under the partial payment formula.

Q: Why did the Supreme Court block the SNAP payment order?

A: Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson issued an "administrative stay" to give the First Circuit Court of Appeals time to properly consider the Trump administration's legal arguments about separation of powers and spending authority during government shutdowns. This is a procedural pause, not a ruling on the legal merits.

Q: When will the court decide if full SNAP benefits must be paid?

A: The First Circuit Court of Appeals is expected to rule "with dispatch" (quickly). Justice Jackson's order expires 48 hours after the appeals court issues its decision on whether to stay Judge McConnell's order pending the full appeal.

Q: Can I get emergency food assistance while waiting for SNAP?

A: Yes. Visit FeedingAmerica.org to locate food banks near you. Many are expanding hours and services specifically because of the SNAP crisis. You do not need to prove SNAP eligibility to receive food bank assistance. For emergency help, contact the Feeding America National Hotline at 1-800-984-3663 or USDA National Hunger Hotline at 1-866-348-6479.

Q: What states have already paid full November SNAP benefits?

A: Wisconsin, Kansas, New Jersey, Vermont, and Pennsylvania confirmed they distributed or began distributing full benefits Friday before the Supreme Court stay. Massachusetts and New York announced plans for weekend distribution but may be affected by the stay.

Q: Will this affect my credit score if I can't buy groceries?

A: SNAP benefits themselves don't affect credit scores. However, if food insecurity causes you to miss other bill payments (rent, utilities, credit cards), those missed payments will damage your credit. Contact creditors immediately if you anticipate problems.

Q: What happens if Congress ends the government shutdown?

A: If Congress passes an appropriations bill and the president signs it, SNAP would be fully funded going forward under normal procedures. All legal challenges related to the shutdown would become moot. However, there's no indication a deal is imminent as of November 7, 2025.

Q: Has this ever happened before with SNAP?

A: No. This is the first time a presidential administration has attempted to suspend or significantly reduce SNAP benefits during a government shutdown. Past administrations from both parties continued full payments during prior shutdowns, including the 35-day shutdown from December 2018-January 2019.

Q: What legal authority does a judge have to order SNAP payments during a shutdown?

A: This is the central constitutional question being litigated. Plaintiffs argue the Administrative Procedure Act requires agencies to use available funds and prohibits "arbitrary and capricious" decision-making. The Trump administration argues courts cannot compel spending decisions reserved to the executive branch.

---

Disclosures

This article is for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal, financial, or professional advice. Information about the Supreme Court ruling, SNAP benefits, and the government shutdown was current as of publication on November 7, 2025, but this is a rapidly developing situation.

Readers should:

• Verify current benefit status directly with their state EBT office

• Consult with qualified legal professionals for specific legal questions

• Seek licensed financial advisors for individual financial planning

• Contact local social services for emergency food assistance

Credlocity is a credit repair and consumer advocacy organization, not a law firm, financial planning firm, or government agency. We provide credit repair services, consumer education, and advocacy but cannot provide legal representation or financial planning advice.

The author, Joeziel Vazquez, is a Board Certified Credit Consultant and consumer finance expert but is not an attorney. Court case analysis presented here is based on public court documents and news reporting, not legal interpretation or prediction of case outcomes.

For emergency food assistance, contact:

• Feeding America National Hotline: 1-800-984-3663

• USDA National Hunger Hotline: 1-866-348-6479

• Your State's EBT Customer Service: Number on back of your EBT card

For credit and financial issues related to the government shutdown, contact Credlocity or visit www.credlocity.com.

---

Sources

All claims in this article are supported by the following verified sources:

1. CNN Politics. "Trump asks Supreme Court to step into fight over food stamp benefits." November 7, 2025. https://www.cnn.com/2025/11/07/politics/trump-administration-supreme-court-snap-benefits

2. NBC News. "Trump administration asks for emergency pause on judge's order to fully fund SNAP." November 7, 2025. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/trump-administration-asks-emergency-pause-judges-order-fully-fund-snap-rcna242545

3. CNBC. "Supreme Court pauses order that Trump administration must pay full SNAP benefits." November 7, 2025. https://www.cnbc.com/2025/11/07/snap-trump-appeals-food-stamps.html

4. ABC News. "Appeals court says it won't block order to fully fund SNAP as states begin issuing benefits." November 7, 2025. https://abcnews.go.com/US/trump-administration-asks-appeals-court-immediately-halt-ruling/story?id=127294307

5. ABC News. "Judge orders Trump administration to fully fund SNAP benefits by Friday, rebukes Trump." November 6, 2025. https://abcnews.go.com/US/judge-orders-trump-administration-fully-fund-snap-benefits/story?id=127273708

6. CBS News. "Supreme Court temporarily freezes order requiring Trump administration to provide full SNAP payments." November 7, 2025. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/appeals-court-trump-administration-full-snap-benefits/

7. The Hill. "JD Vance calls court order to fully fund SNAP 'absurd ruling.'" November 7, 2025. https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5594443-vance-pushes-back-snap/

8. NPR. "Trump administration ordered to restore full SNAP benefits by Friday." November 6, 2025. https://www.npr.org/2025/11/06/nx-s1-5600097/snap-partial-payments-trump-administration

9. SCOTUSBlog. "Trump administration urges Supreme Court to pause ruling on November SNAP payments." November 7, 2025. https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/11/trump-administration-urges-supreme-court-to-pause-ruling-on-november-snap-payments/

10. The Washington Post. "Trump administration asks Supreme Court to block order on SNAP benefits." November 7, 2025.

All sources accessed and verified November 7, 2025. Court documents and legal filings referenced are part of the public record in the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island and subsequent appellate proceedings.

---

About the Author

Joeziel Vazquez is the Founder and CEO of Credlocity, a Philadelphia-based credit repair company established in 2008. With 17 years of experience in consumer finance and credit repair, Joeziel holds multiple professional certifications including Board Certified Credit Consultant (BCCC), Certified Credit Score Consultant (CCSC), Certified Credit Repair Specialist (CCRS), and is an FCRA Certified Professional.

Under his leadership, Credlocity has served over 79,000 clients and successfully deleted $3.8 million in unverified debt from consumer credit reports. Joeziel has contributed insights to major financial discussions and provided commentary on SCOTUSBlog regarding consumer finance and regulatory issues.

After personally experiencing credit repair fraud in 2008 that cost him $1,847, Joeziel dedicated his career to ethical credit repair practices and consumer protection advocacy. Since 2019, he has conducted investigative journalism exposing fraud in the credit repair industry.

Connect with Joeziel: LinkedIn

---

Last Updated: November 7, 2025, 11:00 PM EST

This is a developing story. Check back for updates as court proceedings continue.