MIAMI, FLORIDA - OCTOBER 31: A 'We Accept (Food Stamps)' sign hangs in the window of a grocery store on October 31, 2025 in Miami, Florida. The food stamp program, now known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), may run out of funding on November 1st due to the federal government shutdown, which is now entering its second month. In Miami-Dade County, nearly one in six residents receives food assistance. (Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images)

Joe Raedle | Getty Images News | Getty Images

The Supreme Court on Friday night temporarily paused a federal judge's order that directed the Trump administration to pay full SNAP benefits to 42 million Americans for November by the end of the day.

The move came hours after the 1st Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in Boston denied the administration's emergency request to halt the order relating to food stamp benefits to primarily low-income people.

But the appeals court also said it would soon rule on whether the administration was entitled to a stay of the order by U.S. District Court in Rhode Island Judge Jack McConnell while its appeal of the order plays out.

Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, in the order on Friday night in favor of the administration, pushed the 1st Circuit to quickly determine whether to issue that stay.

"The applicants assert that, without intervention from this Court, they will have to 'transfer an estimated $4 billion by tonight' to fund SNAP benefits through November," Jackson wrote.

That money was to come from so-called Section 32 funds that the Trump administration said it did not want to use to augment a partial payment of SNAP benefits that federal officials planned to make. The partial benefits payment would come from $4.6 billion in contingency funds set aside by Congress for that purpose.

The administration originally planned not to pay any SNAP benefits in November because of the ongoing government shutdown.

"Given the First Circuit's representations, an administrative stay is required to facilitate the First Circuit's expeditious resolution of the pending stay motion," Jackson wrote.

She said that the Supreme Court's stay "will terminate forty-eight hours after the First Circuit's resolution of the pending motion, which the First Circuit is expected to issue with dispatch."

That two-day window would give time for the Trump administration, or plaintiffs in the case, to return to the Supreme Court to challenge any ruling by the 1st Circuit.

It is not clear to what extent Jackson's order will affect payments of SNAP benefits.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture earlier Friday told states it would begin disbursing full SNAP benefits to comply with McConnell's order, even as the administration appealed the ruling.

The USDA's memo did not suggest that the administration would renege on that plan even if a higher court blocked the order.

The Associated Press reported late Friday that more than half a dozen states had "confirmed that some SNAP recipients already were issued full November payments on Friday."

New York Attorney General Letitia James, in a statement on Jackson's order, said, "This decision is a tragedy for the millions of Americans who rely on SNAP to feed their families."

"It is disgraceful that the Trump administration chose to fight this in court instead of fulfilling its responsibility to the American people," said James, whose state is one of the plaintiffs in another pending lawsuit seeking for force full SNAP benefits to be paid.

"Every day the federal government delays is another day that children, seniors, and families face real pain and suffering,"

Read more CNBC government shutdown coverage

The administration last week said it would not pay any SNAP benefits in November because of the federal shutdown, which began on Oct. 1 when Congress failed to pass a bill to provide short-term funding for federal programs, including food stamps.

Past administrations have paid the benefits during other shutdowns.

A group of plaintiffs, comprised of cities, unions, nonprofits, and a retailer, then sued the administration in Rhode Island federal court, asking McConnell to order that full benefits be paid for the month.

McConnell on Oct. 31 ordered the administration to disburse at least partial SNAP benefits as soon as possible by tapping the contingency fund.

He also ordered the administration to explore whether other pools of previously appropriated money could be used to fully fund SNAP, which costs about $8 billion per month.

The administration on Monday said it would pay 50% of SNAP benefits in November by using the contingency funds. But it refused to use another $4 billion from a Section 32 fund that would have made up the difference in the SNAP payments. 

The administration two days later said a re-calculation found it could pay 65% of the SNAP benefits from the contingency fund.

The plaintiffs then urged McConnell to order the administration to make the full SNAP payments from available funds. 

The judge did so on Thursday, saying at a hearing that the administration's decision to rule out Section 32 funds was "arbitrary and capricious." 

"People have gone without for too long," McConnell said.

"The evidence shows that people will go hungry, food pantries will be overburdened, and needless suffering will occur" if SNAP is not fully funded, he wrote in an order.

The administration on Friday morning asked the 1st Circuit appeals court to block McConnell's order, even as the USDA issued its memo to states saying that it intended to comply with the ruling.

On Friday night, a three-judge panel on that appeals court denied the administration's request.

The panel noted that "the government has not disputed that it may under [federal law] use the Section 32 fund to cover the provision of SNAP benefits for" November.

But the panel also said that the "government's motion for a stay pending appeal [of McConnell's order] remains pending, and we intend to issue a decision on that motion as quickly as possible."