Supreme Court Extends Pause on Order Mandating Full SNAP Payments
The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday affirmed a temporary injunction that blocks a district‑court order requiring the federal government to resume full payments of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) to all eligible households. The high court’s brief order leaves in place the pause that had been granted to the Trump administration earlier this year, meaning that the agency will continue to issue reduced benefits to millions of recipients while the legal dispute proceeds.
The underlying case stems from a 2023 lawsuit filed by a coalition of anti‑hunger advocates who argued that the administration’s policy of issuing partial SNAP benefits violated statutory requirements that the program provide full assistance to eligible families. A federal district court in Washington, D.C., ruled that the administration must revert to full payments pending a full hearing. The government appealed, contending that the reduced‑benefit approach was necessary to address budgetary constraints and to correct perceived errors in the program’s rollout.
Legal analysts noted that the Supreme Court’s decision does not address the merits of the dispute, but rather preserves the status quo while the appeal is considered. Advocates for low‑income households expressed disappointment, warning that continued partial payments could exacerbate food insecurity for vulnerable populations. Government officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, indicated that the pause allows the administration to complete a review of the SNAP formula and to ensure that any policy changes comply with existing statutes. Both sides agreed that a final resolution could take several months.
The case is likely to return to the lower courts for further briefing, and the Supreme Court may schedule oral arguments later in the year. In the meantime, the continuation of reduced SNAP benefits will affect an estimated 7 million households, according to recent agency data. Observers suggest that the outcome could have broader implications for how federal nutrition assistance programs are funded and administered, underscoring the tension between fiscal policy and the government’s obligation to address hunger.
