Families Left Waiting After SNAP Funding Halted by the U.S. Supreme Court
- contactbehindthesh
- Nov 9
- 2 min read
Millions of families across the United States faced new delays in their food stamp benefits this weekend after the Supreme Court allowed the Trump administration to continue withholding some funding for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP. The ruling came late Friday night and immediately disrupted the efforts of several states that had already begun sending full benefits to residents. These payments were intended to bring relief after weeks of uncertainty caused by the ongoing federal shutdown, but the Court’s temporary order put many of those plans on hold. The decision added another layer of confusion to an already unstable situation and left millions of Americans wondering when they would next receive the aid that helps them purchase food each month.
The impact of the decision is widespread, touching roughly 42 million people who depend on SNAP to meet their basic nutritional needs. States like Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, and Oregon had moved quickly to restore full funding before the Court intervened. Once the ruling came down, state officials were forced to halt or delay payments they had just begun to process. The administration’s argument is that it cannot use certain federal funds without explicit approval, but that explanation has frustrated many local leaders. Critics point out that the government has managed to redirect money to other federal programs during the shutdown, raising questions about why food assistance is being treated differently.
For people who rely on these benefits, the legal arguments are less important than the immediate consequences. In New York City, Duwanna Alford, a grandmother who depends on SNAP, found her EBT (Electronic Benefits Transfer) card declined when she tried to buy a breakfast sandwich for her grandson. She described calling the program hotline but being unable to get through. Likewise, many store owners are feeling the effects as well. Sanad Ali, who works at a deli in Manhattan, said that EBT transactions have failed more frequently, cutting into his business’s income and reducing customer traffic in a neighborhood where few stores accept food stamps.
Across the country, state officials have been trying to respond while navigating federal guidance. Massachusetts managed to send full benefits to residents whose payments were due by Friday, but those scheduled for the following week were left in doubt. States such as Michigan and North Carolina had intended to distribute payments quickly but were forced to delay their plans after the Supreme Court order. New Jersey officials expressed concern that the federal government might even restrict the company that manages EBT cards from accessing funds, which could halt the program completely. The uncertainty has created anxiety for both families and state agencies, which are being asked to carry out a federal program without knowing how long it will remain funded.
The legal battle over SNAP funding is far from over. The Supreme Court’s order is temporary, and an appeals court will soon decide whether the administration must release the full funding or can continue withholding it. However, the uncertainty created by these shifting rulings has already caused harm. Families who depend on food stamps are now facing longer waits and increased stress about how to provide for themselves. Even when funding is eventually restored, the repeated interruptions have shown how easily essential programs can become entangled in political conflict.
Sources:
Comments