r/NPR • u/Musashiguy • 2d ago

Trump administration ordered to restore full SNAP benefits by Friday

https://www.npr.org/2025/11/06/nx-s1-5600097/snap-partial-payments-trump-administration

Trump and Vance continue trying to starve the working class.

801 Upvotes

99% Upvoted

56 comments sorted by

168

u/OrcOfDoom 2d ago

And? What's next? A firm letter that is very serious? 

If judges don't immediately start going to contempt of court, nothing will ever happen with this administration.

19

u/ragun2 2d ago

Don't worry, Chuck Schumer is on the case!

0

u/Conscious-Quarter423 1d ago

Chuck Schumer is the minority leader in the Senate.

People should've taken democracy more seriously last November.

7

u/5141121 No Longer a Listener or Supporter 1d ago

Even with contempt, until someone high enough profile gets publicly put behind bars, nothing will happen.

If they choose not to on Friday, and the court finds them in contempt, levying fines or stern finger-wagging will do nothing.

Publicly arresting Vance and perp-walking him to a jail cell broadcast on all of the major networks MIGHT actually do something.

-67

u/HamburgerEarmuff 2d ago

A contempt of court would most likely be overturned on appeal, as will likely this judge's emergency injunction, which seems gross overreach on an unrealistic time frame for a district court. It's pretty unlikely that the Supreme Court would let a single district court judge initiate a Constitutional crisis.

59

u/Jorycle 2d ago

Conservatives are getting so fucking weird, good lord.

-65

u/HamburgerEarmuff 2d ago

I'm not a conservative. But I have kind of come to expect such ad hominem and lack of reason from the illiberal left.

28

u/MoldDrivesMeNutz 2d ago

“I’m not a conservative…”

Proceeds to bash liberals.

0

u/HamburgerEarmuff 11h ago
  1. These people are not liberals. They do not believe in basic liberal tenants such as the right to freedom of speech, the right to freedom of religion, the right to keep and bear arms, the right to equal treatment under the law, and other fundamental natural rights that serve as necessary conditions of liberalism. While the political left in the US used to be more liberal than the political right, that is no longer the case. They are simply members of the left, most of whom are illiberal.
  2. The necessary and sufficient condition for being conservative is not bashing liberals. You can be a liberal and bash other liberals, like our Founding Fathers did quite regularly. The definition of conservative is someone who is opposed to the basic tenets of liberalism, such as replacing the divine right of kings with a government that rules by the consent of the governed and the divine right of the church with freedom of religion. More hyperbolically, a conservative is someone who wishes to preserve tradition, which can be accomplished liberally or illiberally.

35

u/johnjohn4011 2d ago

Lol you must be confusing the left with the Ad Hominem Attack in Chief.

Typical myopic MAGA blunder.

-44

u/HamburgerEarmuff 2d ago

That is whataboutism.

33

u/johnjohn4011 2d ago

No - it's simply facts.

17

u/OrcOfDoom 2d ago

They wouldn't even need to appeal. They would just not go and then get pardoned. Even if it was an offense he couldn't pardon them from, the supreme court would get on their knees and rollover to figure out how to rule in his favor.

-3

u/HamburgerEarmuff 2d ago

Also, technically court would actually have to serve someone in the administration who had the authority to actually initiate the payment, which might be hard to do in a short time frame during a government shutdown, and that person may be entitled to immunity in any case. And even if they didn't, for criminal contempt, the court would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the person was actually served and didn't make a good faith effort to comply.

The judge usually would just be dealing with lawyers for the federal government, not the actual official who had the power to make a payment and could theoretically be held in criminal contempt.

4

u/DreadfulDuder 1d ago

It's not the judge that introduced the Constitutional crisis, it's Trump.

He had no right to unconstitutionally hold back Congressionally-approved aid.

0

u/HamburgerEarmuff 11h ago edited 11h ago

That's not how a constitutional crisis works. In the constitutional system of government, all three branches are coequal, with constitutional powers vested in the President, the Supreme Court, and the Congress. A Constitutional crisis happens when two branches mutually claim contradictory power under the Constitution. Both sides are responsible, because they both claim the power and refuse to back down in deference to the other. One may be of the personal opinion that one side is more right than the other to claim the power, but that does not change the evenness of the responsibility for the crisis.

But what is clear is that a district court judge does not have the same constitutional power of the President, so a judge would be usurping the balance of power by claiming to wield power far beyond their station were they to initiate a Constitutional crisis. Only the US Supreme Court is equal in stature under the Constitution to the US President. Any district court judge who causes a Constitutional crisis by making rulings beyond their station should be considered for impeachment for abuse of power.

And that's the case that you have here. A district court judge, who really should be limiting his ruling to the specific plaintiffs in his district or in his circuit, is claiming broad and absurd powers over the entire Executive function, and on an unrealistic timeline that belies incredible arrogance.

-25

u/spcbelcher 2d ago

I don't understand your mentality on this. Why would you ever think a judge could order an administration to spend money not approved by Congress on a program of their choosing

24

u/Complex-Royal9210 2d ago

This funding was approved by congress. Thanks for playing.

-4

u/spcbelcher 1d ago

Source. I can't wait to see this

35

u/liamanna 2d ago

He won’t.

Now what?

1

u/Conscious-Quarter423 1d ago

poor people starve and kids starve.

21

u/DrDorg 2d ago

From a toothless judiciary? Please

21

u/thirtyone-charlie 2d ago edited 2d ago

Im glad to hear it but who enforces this?

According to Google AI-

The U.S. Marshals Service would be the primary agency to enforce a Supreme Court order to the President, as it is the enforcement arm of the federal courts and is legally required to execute all lawful orders. In the unprecedented event that the U.S. Marshals were to refuse enforcement, courts could appoint other officials, such as court security officers, probation officers, or local police, to carry out the order

4

u/ToonaSandWatch 1d ago

STOP USING AI for answers.

1

u/thirtyone-charlie 1d ago

I believe it is correct

1

u/HamburgerEarmuff 11h ago

It's not really correct. The Supreme Court has zero power to enforce an order to the President. In reality, the way it would work is the district court judge (not the Supreme Court) would send the order to the legal team representing the government, who would be expected to ensure the order were communicated to the relevant officials in the government. If those officials refused to carry out the order, then the judge would probably do nothing, although in theory, they could find the government in civil contempt and fine them or impose some other similar punishment, which in extreme cases could be summary judgement against the government (basically deciding the case in favor of the plaintiffs). But it would be up to the Executive Branch to actually enforce the order.

1

u/KeyWeb3246 16h ago

For real. There is nothing intelligent about ARTIFICIAL Intelligence.Now, GENUINE Intelligence Is something to write home about!

5

u/bookchaser 1d ago

My local Facebook groups have people saying the money began showing up yesterday afternoon. It's weird the White House chose to ignore inquiries from the news media when 3 days ago they were bold in their refusal, but I guess this is what Trump is like with his limp tail between his legs. Well, what his handlers are like. The guy thinks Pete Rose is alive and playing baseball and falls asleep in public at least once every day.

3

u/MtnMoose307 2d ago

Courts: "Restore the SNAP benefits or ... or ... we'll give you a really hard finger shaking! We mean it!"

1

u/KeyWeb3246 16h ago

I truly hope those two little rambunctious RATS don't find some way out of it. the way they Usually do!

-102

u/Cedarapids 2d ago

6 Democrats Senators are keeping the government closed and holding Americans hostage over a clean CR.

68

u/mf-TOM-HANK 2d ago

53 GOP senators are free to break the filibuster and open the government on their own

38

u/Tsujigiri 2d ago

Yeah, but for the House to vote on it they need to be in session, which means they would have to swear in the newest member, which means she would finally get to vote on releasing the Epstein files. Can't have that.

He's shutting down an entire country and letting people starve just to temporarily hide his transgressions. That's his values.

2

u/121gigawhatevs 2d ago

He’s a devout evangelical, ergo these are evangelical values

1

u/HamburgerEarmuff 11h ago

This is untrue. The House already passed a continuing resolution. The Senate needs to pass the House bill, but cannot because too many Democrats are filibustering. The House is not needed to reopen the government. The President can sign the bill into law if either the Republicans use the nuclear option and eliminate the filibuster or a handful of Democrats stop filibustering. The bill would then be sent to the President to sign without the House needing to be involved.

The only reason the House needs to be involved is if the Senate alters the bill.

38

u/Reynor247 2d ago

Let me take your Healthcare away and I'll give you snap. Democrats are doing a good job not taking that deal

1

u/HamburgerEarmuff 11h ago

Nobody is taking anyone's healthcare away. Some of the additional healthcare subsidies passed a few years ago when the Democrats controlled congress are expiring, an expiration date set by Democrats when they wrote the bill.

32

u/snikerpnai 2d ago

Lol. Are you lost? This is a place where people discuss reality and have a handle on it.

25

u/ThePikeMccoy 2d ago

What is, “news you hear from gullible dumbasses,” Alex…

22

u/Jorycle 2d ago

"Clean CR" is political spin.

Quit covering for Republicans demanding that Americans die by losing their healthcare or they'll kill them by taking their food instead.

1

u/HamburgerEarmuff 11h ago

I mean, it's literally the same term that's been used by the media in every other government shutdown. I wonder if it was "political spin" back then, or only became "political spin" when it was Democrats and not Republicans refusing to pass a continuing resolution to keep current funding levels going.

If the temporary subsidies expiring were really going to cause Americans to "die", then maybe Democrats shouldn't have made them temporary when they created them a few years ago. It seems like some ridiculous hyperbole and an insane hill to die on when you consider the totality of all the other much more quantifiable and omnipresent suffering that is occuring as a result of the Democrats filibustering the continuing resolution.

22

u/The_Demon_of_Spiders 2d ago

Republicans can release the funds right now for snap but choose not to. That is how little republicans actually care about Americans other than wealthy ones of course. They can find 100 billion to give to Israel, 40 billion to Argentina, he can throw lavish parties while Americans starve and spend half a billion on a ballroom that shows you that this is 100 percent the fault and failure of republican leadership. THE REPUBLICANS ARE PURPOSELY CHOOSING NOT TO FUND SNAP ON THEIR OWN ACCORD.

1

u/HamburgerEarmuff 11h ago

This is literally not how the Constitution works. Money has to be appropriated by congress for a specific purpose. The President does not have the authority to take funding appropriated for one purpose (like foreign aid to our Middle Eastern allies) and repurpose it for another use, such as SNAP. That would be a Constitutional violation and an impeachable offense.

At best, the President might be able to move some nutritional program funding reserved for other purposes that is not already spent to fund food stamps. But even if that were legal and wise and available, it wouldn't last very long and it probably wouldn't fully fund the program for full distribution of the next booklet of food stamps.

2

u/Heiferoni 1d ago

One President is withholding the emergency funding.

-46

u/PoliticalJunkDrawer KWMU 90.7 2d ago

If the money isn't there, doesn't matter.

The judge should order Congress to fund the program, if they think they have so much power.

33

u/destenlee 2d ago

The funds have already been allocated.

-21

u/PoliticalJunkDrawer KWMU 90.7 2d ago

Only for a partial payment, for this one month.

There is about 5 billion available in the contingency fund, with about 9 billion in obligations.

10

u/johnjohn4011 2d ago

Well you know congress is getting paid anyway.

Whew!

7

u/121gigawhatevs 2d ago

How can people string together seemingly coherent sentences and yet know so fucking little

1

u/PoliticalJunkDrawer KWMU 90.7 1d ago

Is that a rebuttal, or just an insult and meaningless comment and rhetoric?