The Supreme Court temporarily extended an administrative stay that blocks a lower-court order which would have forced the administration to fully fund SNAP, and the pause now runs until the night of November 13, 2025.
The Court on Tuesday extended the administrative freeze on a Rhode Island judge’s ruling about Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program payments, keeping the status quo in place while the legal fight continues. The original lower-court order would have required using $5 billion in contingency funds and compelled the administration to find roughly $4 billion more to cover SNAP’s typical monthly cost of $8.5 to $9 billion. With a temporary stay in effect, immediate disruption to benefit payments was avoided.
Judge John McConnell’s decision had ordered the administration not only to tap the contingency money but to fully fund SNAP for November, a step that would have forced a substantial budget reallocation. That ruling arrived amid the messy politics surrounding a recent shutdown, and it landed on an already tight federal fiscal calendar. The extended stay buys time for the Court and the parties to weigh the case without forcing an abrupt payment shift.
As the shutdown ended and Congress passed a continuing resolution, critics argued the judge’s directive may now lack practical force because the CR provides full funding for SNAP through its term. The administration’s position was that contingency funds could cover obligations through November, while challengers pushed for full program funding beyond that. The conflict has become entangled with larger partisan fights over shutdown leverage and budget priorities.
The short order filed by the Court made clear that the administrative stay entered on November 7 would be extended for a limited period. The record shows a split on how to handle the emergency application, and the extension is narrowly tailored to avoid immediate consequences for beneficiaries. That narrow approach reflects the Justices’ interest in preventing sudden administrative upheaval while the legal issues play out.
ROLLINS, SEC. OF AGRIC., ET AL. V. RI COUNCIL OF CHURCHES, ET AL. The application for stay presented to Justice Jackson is referred to the Court. The administrative stay entered on November 7, 2025, is hereby extended until 11:59 p.m. (EST) on November 13, 2025. Justice Jackson would deny the request for extension of the administrative stay and would deny the application.
The excerpt above shows that Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson would have denied the extension, a detail the Court order left on the public docket. That disclosure highlights a fracture among the Justices about whether to keep the temporary freeze in place. The specific date and time in the order set a firm deadline for when the next legal move must arrive, raising pressure on the parties to act quickly.
Politically, this fight has fallen into familiar lines: one side warning of sudden harm to families if benefits lapse, the other pointing to judicial overreach and federal spending mandates. Republican commenters and officials framed the matter as another example of Democratic brinkmanship tied to the shutdown, arguing the ultimate blame lies with those who pushed the government into paralysis. The legal questions, however, remain focused on statutory authority and the appropriate scope of emergency relief.
Editor’s Note: After more than 40 days of screwing Americans, a few Dems have finally caved. The Schumer Shutdown was never about principle—just inflicting pain for political points.
Help us report the truth about the Schumer Shutdown. Use promo code POTUS47 to get 74% off your VIP membership.
