This autumn saw users of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) thrown into uncertainty after Senate Democrats voted to shut down the government.

That led to an odd situation in which a Democrat-appointed Supreme Court justice won praise from liberals by siding with President Donald Trump. 

Case concerned order from lower court

As CNN recalled in an article published this past weekend, the saga began when US District Judge John McConnell instructed the Trump administration to fund SNAP benefits with money from the Section 32 Child Nutrition Fund.

"Last weekend, SNAP benefits lapsed for the first time in our nation’s history, this is a problem that could have and should have been avoided," McConnell wrote in his order.

"Without SNAP funding for the month of November, 16 million children are immediately at risk of going hungry," the judge continued.

"This should never happen in America. In fact, it’s likely that SNAP recipients are hungry as we sit here," McConnell went on to declare.

Jackson granted emergency request but later dissented

In response, the White House turned to America's highest judicial body and requested an "administrative stay" that would block McConnell's decision from going into effect while the justices reviewed its legitimacy.

It argued that complying with McConnell's demand would deplete the Section 32 Child Nutrition Fund on which millions of students rely for lunch and breakfast. 

CNN noted how Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson received the request, as she is responsible for emergency appeals arising from the First Circuit where McConnell operates.

Jackson, who was placed on the Supreme Court by then-President Joe Biden in 2022, granted the administration's request, with CNN pointing out that she knew "there would be a majority to grant Trump’s request if she didn’t do so."

The justice later went on to author a dissent which stated that she "would deny the request for extension of the administrative stay and would deny the application."

Jackson described as the "sharpest critic" of decisions favoring Trump

"Even before the SNAP case, Justice Jackson had already emerged as the most vocal, most frequent, and sharpest critic of the majority’s inconsistent, difficult-to-justify, and often unjustified behavior in Trump-related cases," CNN Supreme Court analyst Steve Vladeck.

He added that Jackson "is unafraid of sending increasingly loud public signals when those efforts are, as they so often have been this year, ultimately for naught."

As CNN observed, the matter was ultimately rendered moot after eight Democrats in the Senate and six in the House voted with Republicans to reopen the government.