A Supreme Court justice has temporarily halted a lower court's ruling that mandated the Trump administration to fully fund the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) for November by the end of the day Friday. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson issued the order late Friday night, stating that the pause will remain in effect until the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals makes a decision on the matter. Earlier on Friday, the Court of Appeals denied the Trump administration's request for an administrative stay to pause the order for full SNAP funding, prompting the administration to seek intervention from the Supreme Court.

As the legal proceedings unfolded, at least nine states had begun issuing SNAP benefits under the guidance of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), which oversees the program. The USDA indicated that it was working to ensure full November SNAP benefits were available. Local governments and nonprofit organizations urged the Court of Appeals to maintain the order requiring full funding amid the ongoing government shutdown. The Trump administration argued that an emergency stay was necessary to preserve funds for child nutrition programs, specifically the Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) program.

The legal dispute centers on whether a federal judge could compel the government to allocate $4 billion from Section 32 of the Agricultural Adjustment Act Amendment of 1935 to support November SNAP benefits. Solicitor General John Sauer highlighted the potential for significant harm if the government was required to transfer the funds immediately. U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi criticized the circuit court's decision, labeling it as judicial overreach, while groups initiating the lawsuit countered that the administration's argument lacked evidence and failed to acknowledge the severe consequences for millions reliant on SNAP.

Several states, including California, Wisconsin, Kansas, and Pennsylvania, reported that full SNAP benefits were already being issued to some recipients. New York Governor Kathy Hochul confirmed that state agencies had been directed to process full benefits, while New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy stated that his state acted promptly to issue SNAP benefits following USDA funding.

In a related development, Judge Mark L. Wolf, appointed by former President Ronald Reagan, resigned from his position on the U.S. District Court in Massachusetts, expressing strong disapproval of the Trump administration's approach to justice and the rule of law. In an op-ed published in The Atlantic, Wolf stated that he can no longer accept judicial limitations that prevent him from publicly addressing what he views as a systematic erosion of legal principles under the current administration. He described the White House's actions as a significant threat to the rule of law, stating, "Silence, for me, is now intolerable."

Wolf's resignation highlights growing concerns within the federal judiciary regarding prosecutorial independence and constitutional authority. His decision marks a departure from the expected judicial restraint typically associated with Reagan appointees. He accused Trump of instructing Attorney General Pam Bondi to pursue indictments against political opponents without a legal basis and criticized the administration's disregard for established prosecutorial standards.

Wolf also raised concerns about the actions of Trump's border czar, Tom Homan, who was reportedly involved in a cash-for-contracts scheme. He noted that investigations into Homan were halted after Trump took office, despite allegations of misconduct. Additionally, Wolf criticized the administration's executive orders, asserting that many are unconstitutional or illegal, particularly regarding the deportation of undocumented immigrants without due process.

These developments reflect a broader context of legal challenges and criticisms directed at the Trump administration's policies, particularly regarding funding for essential social programs and the integrity of the judicial system.