����Ӱ��AV

In a brief order late Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to a request by the Trump administration to at least temporarily block enforcement of a lower court judge's order that the U.S. Department of Agriculture fund the full November allotment of each of the 42 million Americans who qualify for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.

That administrative "stay'' runs only through 11:59 p.m. Thursday.

The justices gave no indication of how they are leaning on the underlying question of how much authority a federal court judge has to tell the USDA how to spend its money — or what that might mean to food stamp recipients, depending on what they decide.

What the delay in a final decision means to Arizonans is less than clear.

A spokesman for Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs, Christian Slater, said he believes a majority of the state's 900,000 SNAP recipients already had their full November allocation loaded onto their Electronic Benefit Transfer cards. He said it was expected that the rest should have their benefits by Thursday.

That occurred after another federal judge in a parallel case, one in which Arizona is a plaintiff, ordered the USDA to fully fund benefits. But the USDA contends that directive, by Judge Indira Talwani, is not the last word.

The USDA claims states such as Arizona, which got access to federal dollars for full benefits, will have to refund the amount above the 65% if the Supreme Court ultimately concludes the agency was not required to use anything beyond its contingency funds.

How the agency would get the money back, however, is another question. At this point SNAP recipients may already have spent their full November allocations, a figure that state officials say runs about $360 a month for the average Arizona family.

The case now before the Supreme Court relates to the Trump administration's claim that the federal government shutdown, which began at the end of September, left the USDA with no money — and no authority — to make November payments.

Judges in two separate federal courts rejected that contention.

They pointed out the department has about $5 billion in contingency funds, and ruled that, at the very least, the USDA has to tap that fund.

The government eventually conceded that point, saying what's in that account was enough to provide November benefits at 65% of what recipients normally get.

But any effort at resolution fell apart when the USDA told U.S. District Court Judge John McConnell that the calculations necessary to make partial payments would delay recipients getting anything for weeks — or months. The judge said that was unacceptable.

He then ordered the USDA to make full payments. More to the point — and at the heart of the issue before the high court — McConnell directed the agency to make up the difference by diverting another $4 billion it has for Child Nutrition programs it also administers, programs that provide free and reduced-price meals to school children.

The Trump administration wants the justices to rule that the order to move funds from one congressionally funded program to another is beyond McConnell's authority.

Justice Kentaji Brown Jackson, who handles emergency actions in that area of the country, agreed to an initial stay of McConnell's order, to give both sides the chance to file legal briefs on the issue and give her colleagues time to consider and possibly rule on the legal issue.

But they apparently weren't quite ready on Tuesday, as they issued the order keeping the legal stay in place through Thursday night. Only Jackson voted against the extension, saying she was ready to rule against further delaying McConnell's order to provide full benefits. 

Legal issues aside, there could be another reason for the justices' decision to put off a ruling.

Attorneys for the government pointed out there appeared to be a deal to end the congressional shutdown. That deal could include enacting a new budget, they said, including finally allocating the full $9 billion for the November SNAP payments.

Such congressional action could allow the justices to sidestep the thorny legal issues about how much power judges have to tell federal agencies how to spend their money.