Supreme Cruelty: A Plea to the Court’s Conscience

Your recent emergency order halting full SNAP payments during the government shutdown places this Court at the center of a growing constitutional and moral crisis. Issued late on a Friday night, without argument or opinion, the order once again uses the “shadow docket” to shape national policy in darkness. The lower courts found that Congress had already appropriated funds for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, and that the administration’s refusal to release those funds violated both statutory authority and the duty to protect the public interest. Yet this Court chose to intervene—not to clarify the law, but to pause relief for 41 million Americans who depend on those benefits to eat. Under traditional precedent, a stay should issue only when the applicant shows a likelihood of success, irreparable harm, and that the balance of equities favors intervention. The government’s claim of “irreparable harm” here—that it might not be able to claw back money once poor Americans receive food aid—turns equity on its head. Feeding the hungry cannot be construed as harm. Justice Jackson’s narrowly drawn administrative stay, limited to 48 hours after the First Circuit’s ruling, reflects respect for process and a good-faith effort to prevent a worse outcome—a permanent freeze by the full Court. But the broader trend is unmistakable: the Court’s growing reliance on emergency orders, without transparency or reasoning, undermines faith in its impartiality and tarnishes its legitimacy. This Court has long recognized, in cases from Winter v. NRDC to Nken v. Holder, that equitable relief must weigh the human cost of delay. The harm here is not theoretical—it is hunger, deprivation, and despair among millions of Americans, including children, the elderly, veterans, and the disabled. The Court should act swiftly to restore the lower courts’ orders, reaffirm that Congress’s appropriations must be honored, and reject the dangerous idea that executive preference can override the basic right to food. To preserve both its integrity and the rule of law, this Court must step out of the shadows and let the light of justice reach the people it serves.