(The Hill) Over the past week, the Trump administration has successfully contested federal court mandates to continue November’s Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits, leading to significant disruptions in the nation’s food assistance framework.

While the federal government is responsible for funding SNAP, states are tasked with the distribution of these benefits to eligible individuals. The uncertainty surrounding the availability and timing of funds has left 42 million Americans reliant on SNAP in a state of uncertainty.

This week, states and food banks have been on high alert, responding to each new court ruling as they navigate this unprecedented interruption in essential food aid.

It was only hours before the scheduled expiration of SNAP benefits on November 1st that U.S. District Judge John McConnell directed the administration to utilize a $5.25 billion fund to sustain the benefits.

That wasn’t enough to fully cover the November installment, and the Trump administration said days later it would partially fund SNAP without touching the additional funds. President Trump then briefly muddied the waters when he said payments would only be given when “Radical Left Democrats open up government.”

McConnell on Thursday rejected the plans to provide partial payments, ordering that full SNAP benefits be provided. 

The White House quickly balked at the order, with Vice President Vance calling it “absurd” and the Justice Department filing an emergency request to block the order. 

Regardless, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) told states in a memo Friday, a week into November, that it is “working towards implementing November 2025 full benefit issuances” in compliance with McConnell’s order. A handful of states already have distributed the full monthly benefit, according to reports later Friday.

Hours after the USDA’s memo, the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals denied the administration’s request. The Justice Department appealed to the Supreme Court. And in a late Friday order, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson granted the Trump administration’s request.

Jackson’s ruling pauses some of the payments until the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit can decide the administration’s motion to block the order pending its appeal.

“Before the shutdown, food insecurity rates were at their highest in decades, higher even than at the peak of the pandemic,” Linda Nageotte, president and COO of Feeding America, told The Hill. “Hunger is significant in the United States. Food insecurity rates stand at about 12 percent now. One in 7 people in this country, 1 in 5 kids, experience food insecurity, and that is an extraordinary thing.” 

The USDA’s memo was likely received with relief, as experts noted a partial issuance plan would have been an arduous process that delayed benefits by an unknown degree.

“It’s unprecedented, which is part of why states don’t have any programming ready to go right to do a partial benefit,” said Dottie Rosenbaum, senior fellow and director of federal SNAP policy on the food assistance team at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP). 

“They have to figure out how to change the amount in the benefit formula,” Rosenbaum added. “Those are automated systems and so states need to figure out how to reprogram and substitute the different maximum and minimum benefit levels.” 

But the impact of the Supreme Court’s ruling hours after the order is unclear.

Communities across the country braced for the impact of a SNAP pause, with state governments initiating contingency plans and releasing their own emergency funds. According to those who work with food banks, the need for assistance has already spiked. 

“We are hearing from our members that need is escalating quickly. We’re hearing about dramatic expansions and the number of people waiting in line at food distributions. We’re hearing from members that they need folks to step forward in their local communities with financial support, with donations of food,” Nageotte said. 

SNAP is such a massive program that there was no feasible way for state governments to fill in the gaps, something several state leaders like Govs. Kathy Hochul (D-N.Y.) and Tate Reeves (R-Miss.) grimly acknowledged. Nageotte echoed these concerns. 

“The stark reality is this. For every meal’s worth of food our nation’s food banks distribute in a year, the SNAP program provides nine,” she said, when it seemed states could only expect partial payments. “The difference between the scale in those is so vast that despite all of the efforts that we are making right now, we cannot close that gap.”

Even as full benefits are slated to go out this month now, the Trump administration continues to argue in court it should only be providing partial payments while the government is shut down. 

“Indeed, governing regulations contemplate that, in the event of a shortfall in funding, USDA will direct the States to reduce their benefit allotments—which is precisely what USDA did this week,” the DOJ wrote in its appeal. 

McConnell on Thursday dismissed the argument for reduced benefits as arbitrary and capricious. The CBPP contended this week that the constant upheaval over SNAP could have been avoided entirely. 

“Issuing only partial benefits wasn’t necessary in the first place. The courts affirmed that the Administration could provide full benefits by transferring funds from other food assistance programs, as it has done twice to support WIC during the current government shutdown,” the organization stated in a blog post. 

Rosenbaum expressed optimism that despite the ongoing chaos, states will manage to get whatever federal benefits they can to their residents. 

“States have shown in the past, when they’re thrown a curveball like this, that they will go to heroic efforts to get benefits to people,” said Rosenbaum. “Like during COVID, during previous shutdowns, when they’ve been asked to amend how they issue benefits, they have taken on that challenge.”