SNAP, WIC, and the Fight Over Who Controls the Purse Strings
A late-night Supreme Court order gave the Trump administration a temporary win in the food-aid fight, pausing a lower-court ruling that demanded immediate full payment of November SNAP benefits
A late-night Supreme Court order gave the Trump administration a temporary win in the food-aid fight, pausing a lower-court ruling that demanded immediate full payment of November SNAP benefits despite the government shutdown. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s brief order doesn’t decide the case; it simply keeps things from shifting billions of dollars while an appeals court weighs in. That’s important, because what’s at stake isn’t only how much aid goes out—but which program’s money gets used and who gets to make that A late-night Supreme Court order gave the Trump administration a temporary win in the food-aid fight, pausing a lower-court ruling that demanded immediate full payment of November SNAP benefits despite the government shutdown. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s brief order doesn’t decide the case; it simply keeps things from shifting billions of dollars while an appeals court weighs in. That’s important, because what’s at stake isn’t only how much aid goes out—but which program’s money gets used and who gets to make that call.
From the start, the Trump administration has argued that the district court’s mandate to “find” about $4 billion on 24-hours’ notice tramples Congress’s constitutional power over spending. In plain terms: judges shouldn’t order agencies to raid one nutrition account to pay another. According to the Justice Department, forcing USDA to reroute funds makes “a mockery of the separation of powers,” because SNAP shortfalls caused by a shutdown are supposed to be solved by Congress, not by judicially engineered transfers. That’s a straightforward appropriations argument—and the Supreme Court often pauses lower-court orders when the government shows that irreversible spending would occur before appellate review.
The administration also says it is protecting WIC and other child-nutrition programs by not draining accounts earmarked for mothers, babies, and young children to fill a temporary SNAP gap. Critics portray that as obstruction; supporters see it as common-sense triage: don’t cannibalize one nutrition program to prop up another during a short-term budget crisis. The Court’s pause reflects that prudence—if agencies move billions today and the order is later reversed, the money is gone and the damage is done.
To be clear, SNAP helps roughly 42 million Americans put food on the table. No one disputes its importance. But during a shutdown, the law constrains how money moves. The lower court effectively told USDA to use alternative funds—including a massive child-nutrition account—to pay full November SNAP benefits immediately. Some states even started issuing full payments after USDA said it was preparing to make funds available, before the Supreme Court stepped in that evening. The new order restores a short period of fiscal stability while the 1st Circuit decides whether the lower-court mandate overstepped.
Why WIC is crucial—and why the administration cites it
WIC (the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children) serves pregnant and postpartum women, infants, and kids under five. It’s not just grocery money. WIC is built around science-based food packages, breastfeeding support, nutrition counseling, and referrals to healthcare. Decades of research link WIC participation to better birth outcomes, fewer preterm births, and lower healthcare costs—with studies estimating savings of roughly $1.77–$3.50 for every dollar invested. WIC also supports breastfeeding, which the CDC associates with lower risks of infant infections, SIDS, and later-life obesity; for mothers, breastfeeding is linked with reduced risk of high blood pressure, type 2 diabetes, breast and ovarian cancers. In short: WIC dollars protect the most vulnerable households at the most vulnerable time.
That’s why the administration stresses preserving WIC and child-nutrition funding while Congress works through shutdown politics. Even WIC’s footprint underscores its importance: more than half of U.S. infants participate in WIC during their first year, meaning disruptions ripple through pediatric care, family budgets, and local groceries and farmers’ markets that accept WIC benefits. Draining those accounts to fix a separate program’s shortfall would risk collateral damage.
Lawful Budgeting Battle
This is a fight about lawful budgeting under pressure. The Supreme Court’s temporary order signals that moving billions between nutrition programs on a day’s notice is extraordinary and potentially unlawful. The appeals court will now decide whether the lower-court order stands. Until then, the administration’s stance—protect WIC and follow the appropriations rules—has the upper hand. That may not satisfy everyone caught in the shutdown’s crossfire, but it honors a basic principle: in our system, Congress writes the checks, not district judges, and certainly not with money meant for mothers and infants.
From the start, the Trump administration has argued that the district court’s mandate to “find” about $4 billion on 24-hours’ notice tramples Congress’s constitutional power over spending. In plain terms: judges shouldn’t order agencies to raid one nutrition account to pay another. According to the Justice Department, forcing USDA to reroute funds makes “a mockery of the separation of powers,” because SNAP shortfalls caused by a shutdown are supposed to be solved by Congress, not by judicially engineered transfers. That’s a straightforward appropriations argument—and the Supreme Court often pauses lower-court orders when the government shows that irreversible spending would occur before appellate review.
The administration also says it is protecting WIC and other child-nutrition programs by not draining accounts earmarked for mothers, babies, and young children to fill a temporary SNAP gap. Critics portray that as obstruction; supporters see it as common-sense triage: don’t cannibalize one nutrition program to prop up another during a short-term budget crisis. The Court’s pause reflects that prudence—if agencies move billions today and the order is later reversed, the money is gone and the damage is done.
To be clear, SNAP helps roughly 42 million Americans put food on the table. No one disputes its importance. But during a shutdown, the law constrains how money moves. The lower court effectively told USDA to use alternative funds—including a massive child-nutrition account—to pay full November SNAP benefits immediately. Some states even started issuing full payments after USDA said it was preparing to make funds available, before the Supreme Court stepped in that evening. The new order restores a short period of fiscal stability while the 1st Circuit decides whether the lower-court mandate overstepped.
Why WIC is crucial—and why the administration cites it
WIC (the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children) serves pregnant and postpartum women, infants, and kids under five. It’s not just grocery money. WIC is built around science-based food packages, breastfeeding support, nutrition counseling, and referrals to healthcare. Decades of research link WIC participation to better birth outcomes, fewer preterm births, and lower healthcare costs—with studies estimating savings of roughly $1.77–$3.50 for every dollar invested. WIC also supports breastfeeding, which the CDC associates with lower risks of infant infections, SIDS, and later-life obesity; for mothers, breastfeeding is linked with reduced risk of high blood pressure, type 2 diabetes, breast and ovarian cancers. In short: WIC dollars protect the most vulnerable households at the most vulnerable time.
That’s why the administration stresses preserving WIC and child-nutrition funding while Congress works through shutdown politics. Even WIC’s footprint underscores its importance: more than half of U.S. infants participate in WIC during their first year, meaning disruptions ripple through pediatric care, family budgets, and local groceries and farmers’ markets that accept WIC benefits. Draining those accounts to fix a separate program’s shortfall would risk collateral damage.
This is a fight about lawful budgeting under pressure. The Supreme Court’s temporary order signals that moving billions between nutrition programs on a day’s notice is extraordinary and potentially unlawful. The appeals court will now decide whether the lower-court order stands. Until then, the administration’s stance—protect WIC and follow the appropriations rules—has the upper hand. That may not satisfy everyone caught in the shutdown’s crossfire, but it honors a basic principle: in our system, Congress writes the checks, not district judges, and certainly not with money meant for mothers and infants.