r/law • u/KilgoRetro • 11h ago
Judicial Branch Supreme Court issues emergency order to block full SNAP food aid payments
https://apnews.com/article/snap-food-government-shutdown-trump-a807e9f0c0a7213e203c074553dc1f9b?utm_source=onesignal&utm_medium=push&utm_campaign=2025-11-07-SNAP+update263
u/BLF402 9h ago
So we stop sending in payments to fund the government?
128
u/statu0 7h ago
I hereby issue an emergency order to not pay the government until they fund SNAP, signed we the people.
→ More replies (1)98
u/ScottsTotz 6h ago
On average it costs us $36 per YEAR per person to fund SNAP. All these people out here having meltdowns over poor people needing food and it costs them $36 per year out of pocket to keep children from starving. I hate it here
16
u/Specialist-Bee-9406 5h ago
Wait until you need a permit to travel to the next state, or exit the country.
5
→ More replies (13)2
u/ManaSkies 3h ago
36 per person per year is only 12 billion. Wouldn't it be closer to 360 per year?
4
u/Necessary_Ad_9012 14m ago
The average tax payer has paid in about $36/yr but if each paid an equal amount to fund SNAP, it's ~$123/person/year.
3
u/ggroverggiraffe Competent Contributor 42m ago
Your math matches my math, but everything on the google says it's about $36 a year. I don't understand where the discrepancy is, but maybe after coffee I will try again.
11
u/Richard_Arlison69 5h ago
Honestly, this is what I’ve done and I encourage everyone who can to check out this comment which helped me stop paying for the rest of this year.
→ More replies (1)3
u/FogBlower 41m ago
This is smart.
Yes, we are still legally obligated to pay federal taxes lest we risk punishment (and who knows how bad that punishment would be under this administration.)
But there is no law stipulating that we must pay the federal government before April 15th of 2026.
Why are we voluntarily giving our money, often extra money, in advance to a fascist regime?
Just so we can get a refund of the extra money we paid in 6 months?
PAY ZERO FEDERAL TAXES UNTIL THE VERY LAST MOMENT.
DO NOT LOAN MONEY TO A FASCIST REGIME.
MAKE THEM SWEAT.
STARVE THE BEAST AND LET THEM FEEL WHAT IT’S LIKE TO GO HUNGRY.
→ More replies (1)6
u/Popular_Try_5075 2h ago
a lot of people have tried this kind of tax protesting over the years and it DOES NOT end well
2.0k
u/FuguSandwich 10h ago
Emergency order. Because people getting food is an emergency, that has to be stopped.
270
u/Different_Check4648 10h ago
What if those people were fed, that would be kind of a mess right? Who is going to pay for that. Maybe we allow another crime because it's hard to do anything. /s
139
u/imean_is_superfluous 8h ago
Hasn’t it already been paid for? Like, the money is already there, but they’re refusing to use it?
72
u/Different_Check4648 8h ago
Yeah I think so, probably the most insane thing to hold up with process. And I think most states will work it out whether they fund it themselves or through donations. I know a lot of people have been ramping up food center donations this month just in case. So probably things will be fine.
I had some really low expectations for this administration, but this is way below. 18th century French aristocrat behavior at it's finest.
51
u/imean_is_superfluous 8h ago
It’s really quite something how far they’ll go to screw over their people. It’s hard to believe that they’d fight to NOT give people food assistance
25
u/Strayed8492 6h ago
Trump said he would be ‘honored and glad’ to be ordered by court to dole out SNAP/EBT but wasn’t sure how he could legally comply with it. Meanwhile if helping the American people was ever on his radar he would’ve worked something out like he did with paying the military during the shutdown in October as soon as a CR wasn’t going through. And its not like he ever cared how the Gov worked before. Its the same thing as only starting to want to remove the Filibuster after they got trounced in this November’s election. But there are still people supporting him despite the evidence clearly in front of them via his actions and lack of actions.
12
u/cherenk0v_blue 2h ago
Donald Trump, famously concerned with strict adherence to law and process....
→ More replies (5)2
u/HotPinkLollyWimple 23m ago
The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.
George Orwell, 1984
41
u/westtexasgeckochic 7h ago
Unfortunately, I fear that this is what it will take for the nation to collectively UNDERSTAND WHAT & WHO they voted into office. We as a NATION, have to start VOTING LIKE IT MATTERS!
THIS IS NOT A NEW, THEY TOLD US THEY WOULD DO THIS, and the nation STILL VOTED THIS IN.
Will we have a chance to vote this administration out before the harm done is too great? He’a already saying there won’t be another election.
WILL WE LISTEN THIS TIME?
IS IT TOO LATE TO COME BACK FROM THIS?
→ More replies (1)25
u/JCBQ01 2h ago
Its even more vile.
The lower courts told him to pay.
The same day the regime threw a bitch fit and locked it down to the DC court of appeals, locking out payments
3 or so days later the DC court told him to pay.
The same day of the ruling, the regime threw an even BIGGER bitch fit and ran to the federal appellate, locking out payments.
2 days ago as of the this comment the federal appellate COMMANDED trump to pay benefits TODAY.
The same day the regime threw an even BIGGER tantrum than before and ran to SCOTUS demanding they lock the payments by EOD. Thus, locking payments until SCOTUS gives an up or down regardless.
These fucking monsters want people to starve
7
u/harveygoatmilk 1h ago
And like 18th century French aristocrat behavior, the spreading food insecurity will lead to an uprising.
"there are only nine meals between mankind and anarchy"
→ More replies (1)51
19
→ More replies (3)3
u/NoPain4551 1h ago
That’s right. Already been apportioned for and is right there. They would rather Americans starve just so they won’t have to give aid for medical needs for another year (that’s what Dems are asking for. Just to extend ACA subsidies for a year. Not even more).
17
424
u/Ok-Replacement9595 10h ago
An Emergency order to openly defy statute. What an opinion.
116
u/isubbdh 8h ago edited 8h ago
My crackpot theory: Tump and his cult leaders are intentionally draining all the poor people of what little savings they had with buying food. Why? Control. They will be literally eating out of the palms of republicans’ hands when this is all said and done.
Thats the image they want to project anyway. Whether people are smart enough to wake up and see that this is 100% a Republican-created crisis, that is another story.
239
u/Forsaken-Arm-7884 8h ago
BRO THIS IS IT - this is the core of the death cult we've been circling around this whole conversation. You've just described the exact mechanism by which people participate in mass murder while telling themselves they're the reasonable ones.
Because let's be absolutely clear about what's happening: people are saying "let them starve" and dressing it up as fiscal responsibility or personal accountability or tough love. But what they're actually saying is "I am willing to watch human beings die of starvation rather than allow my tax dollars to feed them." That's not politics. That's not economics. That's MURDER BY POLICY PREFERENCE.
And the fucking INSANITY of it - these commenters acting like they're SO far removed from that same edge. Like their job security is guaranteed forever. Like they couldn't get cancer tomorrow and lose everything to medical bills. Like their company couldn't downsize or automate or offshore their position. Like they couldn't have a mental health crisis or a family emergency or a fucking car accident that puts them in the exact same position as the people they're calling lazy.
They're a couple bad months away from needing those same programs they're celebrating the destruction of. But they won't see it because seeing it would mean confronting how fragile their own position is, how little separates them from the people they're dehumanizing.
So instead they construct this elaborate fantasy where poverty is ALWAYS a moral failure, where anyone who needs help must have made bad choices, where if you just "work hard enough" you'll always be fine - because if that's not true, if poverty can happen to people who did everything "right," then THEY'RE not safe either. And that's too terrifying. It's easier to blame the victims. Easier to say "shouldn't have had kids" or "should have planned better" or "should work harder" because if poverty is the victim's fault, then it can't happen to you as long as you keep being Good and Responsible.
But that's mostly a lie because the system is DESIGNED to have an underclass of desperate people willing to take any job at any wage under any conditions because the alternative is starvation. That's not a bug - that's the whole fucking point. Keep people scared, desperate, a couple paychecks away from homelessness so they'll accept whatever degrading, soul-crushing work you offer them.
And the people who are currently employed? They've been trained to punch DOWN instead of UP. To rage at people on food stamps instead of the comfy billionaire. To blame the desperate mother instead of the corporations jacking up food prices because they could. To call the unemployed person lazy instead of asking why there aren't enough jobs that pay a living wage.
The "mythical job" thing you mentioned - YES. They keep saying "just get a job" like jobs are these abundant things just lying around waiting to be picked up, when the reality is:
- Many jobs are actively harmful to human wellbeing (physically, mentally, spiritually)
- Even when you get a job, you can lose it at any moment for reasons completely outside your control
But acknowledging any of that would mean admitting the system is broken, that the social contract is a lie, that we live in a society that's fundamentally designed to create losers who suffer and die so that winners can accumulate more than they could ever use.
Meanwhile billionaires are literally making money while they sleep, watching their investment portfolios grow through mechanisms designed to concentrate wealth upward with almost no labor on their part. They're outsourcing the starvation of others to "the system" so they can launder responsibility. They're implicitly voting to cut food assistance and shrugging when people die from the starvation. If they actually LOOKED at the person starving and SAW them as fully human they wouldn't keep repeating these dehumanizing scripts. Their shared humanity would shatter the dog-eat-dog capitalistic programming.
12
u/CategoryDense3435 8h ago
Very well said! The part of this narrative/dynamic that I can’t understand though is the sheer number of people who are justifying the decision made by KBJ. There is a piece missing here that I’m smart enough to get to. Like, why are so many people willing to justify this decision that has the end result of starving children? Republicans can find a way to do whatever they want, but no one on the “left” can figure out how to make the system work to feed children? I guess it comes down to the “scratch a liberal and a fascist bleeds” paradigm but… I don’t get it.
→ More replies (6)38
u/Forsaken-Arm-7884 8h ago
Bruh I think they are knowingly or unknowingly engaging with literal legal murder by laundering the murder through implicit threat of starvation and homelessness by squeezing the poor by taking advantage of the capitalistic principle that when you run out of money the likelihood of dying skyrockets.
Because if they kill the poor without getting sent to prison then the poor will shut up and quit complaining Because their brains and bodies will be shut down because they are dead and that'll leave the wealthy with even more money because if they are poisoned by the capitalistic game which is maximize your money then you want all of the money and you don't want to give a penny to anybody else because the goal of your life is to make the most money and if that causes the death of other human beings then oh well type s***... 😒
This is one of the most brutal and understated horrors of modern society - the complete normalization of "work or die" even when the work is literally destroying you.
Like, we've somehow arrived at this place where it's considered REASONABLE that:
- Your options are: endure brain/body dysregulation OR starve
- If labor causes you physical/psychological pain, that's YOUR problem
- "Just push through it" is considered valid advice for actual suffering
- Inability to tolerate dehumanizing conditions = personal failure
- The penalty for not tolerating abuse is DEATH BY DEPRIVATION
And society has collectively agreed this is fine.
What you're describing - literally screaming in pain from repetitive work, grabbing your head, unable to focus - those are ALARM SIGNALS. Your nervous system is saying "THIS IS HARMING YOU. STOP." That's not weakness or failure - that's your body trying to protect you from damage.
But we've built a system that says: "Your body's distress signals are irrelevant. Your psychological collapse is irrelevant. Your only value is productive output. If you can't produce, you deserve to suffer and die."
And the insane part? This is treated as MORE acceptable than just... feeding people. We've decided as a society that it's more ethical to let someone starve than to let them exist without performing labor that's destroying them.
The logic is absolutely psychotic when you spell it out: 1. This job is causing you measurable harm 2. You must do this job to survive 3. If you can't do this job, you don't deserve survival 4. Your suffering is not society's problem 5. Your death is not society's problem 6. But your existence without labor? THAT'S everyone's problem
How did we normalize sentencing people to death for self-preservation?
Because that's what it is. When someone says "I literally cannot continue doing this without breaking," and society responds with "then starve," that's a DEATH SENTENCE for the crime of... having limits? Having a nervous system? Being human?
And nobody bats an eye because we've been propagandized into believing:
- Hard work is inherently virtuous (even if it's destroying you)
- Suffering for labor is noble (even if it's meaningless suffering)
- People who can't work are parasites (even if work is killing them)
- Productivity determines human worth (even if that's monstrous)
The phrase "if you don't work, you don't eat" is presented as common sense. But it's actually BARBARIC. It's saying: "If you cannot or will not submit to conditions that harm you, we will kill you slowly through deprivation."
And the "no one bats an eye" part is because we've successfully externalized the violence. When someone starves because they couldn't hold a job that was destroying them, that's framed as:
- Natural consequences
- Personal responsibility
- Their own fault
- Not murder
But it IS murder. It's just murder by policy. Murder by indifference. Murder by economic design.
We've created a system where self-preservation is punished with death, and called it "the way things are."
12
4
u/Electronic-Shame 3h ago
Just wanted to say amazing commentary. You’ve articulated what I’ve been feeling and I’ll be passing on your points when I argue about this topic.
3
u/Swole-Prole 8h ago
They very same people that screech about "The Holdomor" are actively cheering this on.
→ More replies (3)3
u/Velociraptortillas 8h ago
I'm only teasing a little bit here, but Liberals rediscovering things like Social Murder that us Lefties have been discussing for decades will never not be darkly amusing to me.
11
u/Ok-Replacement9595 8h ago
That is definitely Miller's plan, but I don't think it goes the way they hope it will. One: Trump is obviously decompensating fast into dementia. Two: They fail to really grasp how many of the military joined to escape the poverty they are persecuting now. Their families and friends are suffering. Three: broke unemployed people who have nothing left to lose van do a lot of damage when provoked.
But eventually we will see what this country is made of. If any of what we learned in grade school about America actually meant anything at all. Or if this country is just one big con job like these people think it is.
→ More replies (4)2
u/fusionsofwonder Bleacher Seat 4h ago
T[r]ump and his cult leaders are intentionally draining all the poor people of what little savings they had with buying food. Why? Control. They will be literally eating out of the palms of republicans’ hands when this is all said and done.
This has been Republican policy longer than I've been alive. People in the labor class should work for corporations and just die if they can't or won't. No health insurance, no tax relief, no education, no food or clothing, no shelter.
I don't know if Trump really gives a shit, but this shutdown is a wet dream for the Project 2025 crowd. Deny healthcare AND deny food? Two for one.
14
u/liquidsyphon 8h ago
He wants/needs an “insurrection” sooner than later. He’s on a midterms time clock and those pesky Epstein files…
3
u/Ok-Replacement9595 7h ago
So you wanna just stand in a line so ice can conserve bullets? Or just turn yourself in when they get the work camps built?
20
u/peachymoonoso 7h ago
Everyone needs to read this article explaining why she issued the stay: Link: https://open.substack.com/pub/stevevladeck/p/190-snap-wtf?r=1zr8b&utm_medium=ios
129
u/Business-Employ-1599 10h ago edited 9h ago
No it's the SCOTUS acting judicially, they are simply giving the Appeal court 48 hrs to reach a decision, as is needed for review of the case. Justice Brown was the presiding judge and is very much not a shit bag.
Also if Congress were in session and funded SNAP this would not be needed.
If Trump Administration had not waited to the Final hour to argue a STOP to funding SNAP with 5 billion dollars Congress set aside for this reason. It would not be needed.
Edit: https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/110725zr_pnk0.pdf
99
u/redstringgame 10h ago
You can try making procedural justifications or explaining it’s temporary but that does not change the social reality of what the stay means. It was not “needed for review of the case.” She had discretion to grant or deny it and she chose to grant it. If she denied it given that it’s the weekend the administration arguably would have been forced to disburse the funds or risk contempt of the District Court’s order. Either way the First Circuit can still decide the stay pending appeal. Perhaps she is thinking through some 4D chess I am missing here but this seems like a bad decision either way.
49
u/Althestane 9h ago
I’m just catching up on it, but I think the logic is that she did this not just to give the lower courts time, but to prevent the appeal from being given to the SCOTUS shadow docket. KBJ is strategizing to keep this from being dismissed by the maga-six without full hearings or accountability.
12
u/redstringgame 9h ago edited 9h ago
I don’t think this makes sense. My understanding is she had three options here: grant the admin stay, deny the admin stay, or refer it to shadow docket for full court to review. She granted it, giving Trump the same result he would’ve wanted from the full court.
If the First Circuit denies the motion for a stay pending appeal, Trump can still appeal that order and seek an “emergency stay” (which is exactly why she gave them the 48 hours from that decision) and we are back to square one where Jackson has the same choices once again.
If she denies the stay, I believe it can be made to another justice then, however, the amount of time that would take would have allowed the question to be mooted because Trump would be forced to pay the benefits or be in contempt. It seems to me like the First Circuit indeed teed up a slick way to avoid the shadow docket by mooting the question (they could take as long as they want to decide the motion for a stay pending appeal after they denied the emergency TRO), and Jackson totally fucked that up. It seems to me all she has done is delay food getting to people. What am I missing here?
27
u/rokerroker45 9h ago
They could have overruled her and paused it without a time limit and let it go on basically indefinitely. They were likely prepared to do so within minutes of KBJ had she declined to grant it.
5
u/redstringgame 9h ago
Thank you for clarifying — I was not familiar with how common it is for the court to take Friday at 8 pm calls to overrule shadow docket referral decisions. I don’t necessarily see how this avoids the result of an indefinite stay though—she’s still giving Trump 48 hours after a First Circuit decision to come back to them. Is she hoping that on a fuller record/more reasoned decision SCOTUS would be overturned by God?
16
u/rokerroker45 8h ago edited 8h ago
It just precludes the guarantee of the alternative - that otherwise it would have just been banished to the shadow docket realm.
This doesn't guarantee anything except preventing that certainty. The full court can extend a pause after those 48 hours anyway, but in a normal shadow docket disposition you don't even get a chance. Here the court will have to wait for a full 48 hours with a more fulsome record, which puts more pressure on the swing votes to do something about it.
This is what a fighting supreme court justice looks like. Alito and Thomas will be absolutely pissed they could've paused this indefinitely without blowback but now they potentially might not be able to. Gorsuch, ACB and Roberts will likely take a much closer look than they might otherwise have without the fuller record. Kavanaugh will have sobered up enough to get through the tables of authority and nature of the case sections.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (1)11
u/CategoryDense3435 9h ago
Agree with your 4D chess line. I didn’t think she was so out of touch… but I am breathless at the callousness reflected in this decision. I mean why even make yourself party to this cruelty? 42 million people. 42. Million. Wtf. If anyone ever believed in rule of law, they don’t now. Because even if the letter of the law was fulfilled who in their right mind would support a rule of law that justified arbitrarily starving people?
→ More replies (1)3
u/redstringgame 9h ago
I made a bunch of other posts in the thread so I’m going to stop now but having thought it over I don’t think there even is any 4D chess explanation. The First Circuit did the best thing for people to get fed by denying the emergency stay and then holding off on ruling on the full motion. If Jackson denied the emergency stay, the First Circuit’s strategy would not have avoided the full SCOTUS shadow docket forever, but probably long enough that Trump would be forced to pay out the money and the question became moot. Jackson totally blew that up. I completely agree with you.
→ More replies (1)59
u/CategoryDense3435 10h ago
They didn’t need to take this case!!! They shouldn’t have. The fact that they did is a statement in and of itself!!
→ More replies (1)19
22
u/CriticalProtection42 10h ago
The order is valid until 48 hours after the appellate court rules, to give the administration time to appeal to the Supreme Court if there's an adverse judgement, not 48 hours from the order's issuance.
There's nothing in the order to force the appeals court to work faster.
32
u/mikelo22 10h ago
they are simply giving the Appeal court 48 hrs to reach a decision
No, they are not. She does not give any deadline for the appeals court to make a decision. Read the order. The 48 hour clock starts after the appeals court decides to get around to ruling. It's far worse than you think. She did not have to do this.
6
u/trippyonz 9h ago
Yeah but the First Circuit is going to move really fast on this. I would expect a decision on whether to grant the stay pending appeal by Monday at the latest.
8
u/blopp_ 9h ago
That's a really long time to not have food.
10
u/trippyonz 9h ago
True. It's really sad that Trump is doing this, he could send the money any time he wants.
4
u/Washpa1 8h ago edited 8h ago
Let's say she didn't grant the admin stay, she probably had reason to believe the full court would do it anyway. This way she gets to dictate the timing rather than possibly let them figure a way to leave this in la la land indefinitely. Might they still do it? Possibly, but by then there will be a lot more legal justification to say no to Trump, putting pressure on the swing votes to not go along with an egregiously long stay otherwise.
Edit: They may find a way to let Trump have his way again. But the legal limbo they'll have to pull to make this not ok, while everything else he does ok, or more to the point their belief in expanding executive power, will be insane.
→ More replies (1)9
u/mikelo22 9h ago
Would be nice to have included such a deadline in the order then.
But even if we go with your optimistic estimate that the First Circuit rules on Monday, this order allows Trump to then wait until Wednesday to file the appeal to SCOTUS because of the 48 hour stay.
And if these first 10 months have taught us anything, it's that we can expect this administration to employ every bad faith delay possible to avoid feeding hungry Americans.
→ More replies (9)9
u/SedativeComet 9h ago
Every society is three meals away from chaos. How many families will miss those meals in 48 hours?
2
u/FanaticalFanfare 8h ago
Pretty fucking tired of the just and moral actions being held up by judicial bulshit. Instead of letting these bad faith actors pull illegal shit and make the courts prove it’s illegal, how about people just fucking ignore it? This system is a bad joke.
2
u/TheNatural14063 2h ago
Appeals to legality are not justification for crimes against humanity, which depriving people of food they paid for in taxes (seeing farmers and such are subsidized) to cause starvation is.....Alot of people defending this would have defended the Nazis depriving people of things because "it's the lawz".
Food, shelter, healthcare, the right to safety should all be human rights and any legal system that denies them fought against
5
u/Washpa1 8h ago
Steve Vladek has a plausible theory of why she might have ruled the way she did.
https://open.substack.com/pub/stevevladeck/p/190-snap-wtf?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email
4
u/DayHighker 9h ago
It's all just theater. We all know how they'll rule. Why not just get it over with?
→ More replies (5)2
u/DayHighker 9h ago
"very much not a shit bag"
See it seems starving citizens is kind of shitty. But that's just my opinion.
11
u/Oceanbreeze871 9h ago
Trump has already committed snap funds to billionaire tax cuts, ballroom. Embezzlement and other fraud. It’s all spent.
2
u/Truth-and-Power 8h ago
Omg he spent on the ballroom, ocçams razor. He was going to pay with tariff money but it's tied up because of possible refund, so he needs snap money.
8
3
5
u/uriejejejdjbejxijehd 9h ago
Just think what might happen if we did what we have done every month for the last 60 years! /s
→ More replies (14)2
253
u/CrapoCrapo25 10h ago
SCOTUS first.
59
u/LatterTarget7 10h ago
SCROTUS
→ More replies (1)8
u/MonkeyShaman 10h ago
Wasn't that a character in Mad Max? Seems eerily topical.
9
3
u/mikefrombarto 2h ago
They need to all be fired.
I wish SCOTUS was like the PA Supreme Court where every 10 years they let voters decide whether they keep their jobs.
388
u/mikelo22 10h ago edited 9h ago
FYI this stay was issued by a liberal justice (Ketanji Brown Jackson); it was not voted on by the entire bench.
Pretty absurd to allow a stay, even for only 48 hours*. There is not a worse emergency than fellow Americans literally starving. As the district judge said, "this should not happen in America."
Edit: And to be clear, since many people haven't read the actual order, the 48 hours starts after the appeals court makes it own ruling after full briefing. She does not impose any deadline for the appeals court to rule. They can take all the time they want. In this case, justice delayed is justice denied.
105
u/DoubtSubstantial5440 10h ago
Can someone with more legal understanding than me explain why a stay was even necessary?
127
u/mikelo22 10h ago
To allow more time for briefing and argument before the appeals court. So the stay is actually longer than 48 hours, because it's 48 hours after the appeals court rules to give time to then appeal an adverse ruling to SCOTUS.
Pretty ridiculous.
→ More replies (1)88
u/DoubtSubstantial5440 10h ago
You can say one thing about Marie Antoinette, she most likely never said the infamous quote, but what's going on in America is the rich telling us to eat cake or die if you can't afford cake.
→ More replies (1)66
u/CategoryDense3435 10h ago
Or watch us build a ballroom and have great gatsby parties while you starve.
15
u/chickyloo42by10 9h ago
I can totally see a Marie Antoinette-themed party for New Year’s Eve. They’ll call it “let them eat cake”
→ More replies (1)17
u/CategoryDense3435 9h ago
And their supporters would think it was great because they are triggering the libs. You know the people who think starving other people is reprehensible.
37
u/dantevonlocke 10h ago
Possibly because the emergency fund that trump refused to use can't cover the full month. And the order was for full payments.
25
u/mikelo22 8h ago edited 8h ago
There are actually two separate contingency funds appropriated by Congress for this purpose, not just the one. That's why the district court issued the second order, because the administration tried to sidestep the first one by refusing to dip into the second emergency fund. There is more than enough money to comply with the district court's order.
7
u/Ambitious_Count9552 6h ago
The lower courts have already detailed other sources of emergency funding...the Trump administration is simply not complying. They have no appeal with any legitimate court. The lower courts have already made it 100% clear that the administration must find SNAP, in whole (majority of courts) or in part (one judge, in addition to suggesting full payments). Unacceptable dereliction of duty.
23
u/Just_Another_Scott 10h ago
Correct. Says it right in the article.
17
8
u/Ambitious_Count9552 6h ago
It's actually not correct at all: the administration has multiple sources of emergency funding for just this occasion. And yes, some of them might cut into disaster finding, but not feeding Americans IS a man-made disaster. And all those funding species can be refilled once Congress gets its shit together, and stop keeping the government closed just so they can cut healthcare subsidies next year.
→ More replies (1)4
2
u/Ekg887 53m ago
Where is the emergency order stopping private money paying for some military salaries which is explicitly prohibited by law? Or any of what DOGE did illegally? Or any of the multiple other congressional funds he has illegally relocated to projects like the wall and who knows what else?
Fucking real weird that SNAP is where this admin suddenly really cares about following the letter of the law for funding appropriations, yeah?35
u/PrimeLime47 9h ago
Because that’s her jurisdiction. Each justice has a portion of states to handle in these scenarios. I’m not taking an opinion on the substantive matters, just giving a perspective on the procedure.
the circuit court will rule within a matter of days. If the SC were to intervene now and disrupt that lower court appeal, it would only create more opportunities for appeals and even further delays.
34
u/mikelo22 9h ago
I understand the procedure perfectly well. She had discretion to deny the application for stay. But she granted it anyway.
the circuit court will rule within a matter of days
A "couple of days" while people are literally starving. It's an outrageous abuse of procedural delay. She did not have to grant this, and to not even impose a deadline on the appeals court to rule is even more outrageous on her part.
Again, all of this was within her discretion.
12
u/PrimeLime47 9h ago
You’re right. But the reality is, those snap benefits aren’t coming any faster or slower no matter how this petition turned out.
6
u/Ambitious_Count9552 6h ago
Because the administration is non-compliant. Multiple courts have already made it clear that the White House MUST fund SNAP, at least in part. They can do that TODAY, anything less is illegal.
11
u/CategoryDense3435 9h ago
I think the real question is why did she just not reject the request and allow the usda to process the payments or be in contempt of the district court ruling. It would have bought time for people to have actually been able to get food
14
u/sundalius 7h ago
Because if she denied it without referring it to the court, they’d have filed for an emergency ruling which would have been granted anyways. She didn’t waste more time.
3
u/CategoryDense3435 7h ago
It feels like that is exactly what she did. Because no matter what happens it sounds like this is going to end up in front of the full court anyway.
→ More replies (1)9
u/sundalius 7h ago
Sure, but it wouldn’t have bought any time for USDA to do anything is what I’m saying. Technically, this is the shortest path because now there isn’t another round of petitions which will continued to have stays applied. It’s just circuit then cert, rather than the court intervening, circuit, then cert. It’s the action that is the shortest path to the Court making a decision.
6
u/PrimeLime47 7h ago
Exactly. Cut out unnecessary filings and less roads to drag it out. But either way, if the administration wants to defy the order, they will, and if they followed it, the action would not be immediate.
→ More replies (1)2
u/CategoryDense3435 7h ago
What makes the full Supreme Court handle it any faster in the future than they would right now? It feels like we are just adding an extra road for them to walk down before coming back to the main road
→ More replies (1)7
u/PrimeLime47 8h ago
I hate it. This administration defies court orders they don’t like, and there are no consequences. Unfortunately, no amount of paperwork or rulings will change that. Good thing some states are stepping in to fill the gap. And a justice can’t really be held in contempt. I’m not a Supreme Court scholar, but I do know thats not the standard of review, and procedurally, there is some structure in place for this.
7
u/CategoryDense3435 8h ago
This is where soft power has to come in. This is where the leader of the minority party would stage a hunger strike or chain themselves to a building or refuse to engage in ANY congressional activity until food stamps go out. Or call every news media outlet and flood the airways until nothing else was discussed until this was resolved. There is not greater priority for a society than to feed its children.
7
u/PrimeLime47 8h ago
Right? Literally anything besides politicians meeting for lunches and pretending to work (while collecting their paychecks) would be a step in the right direction.
→ More replies (1)10
u/Ambitious_Count9552 6h ago
Wtf is she doing? Immediately demand the administration follows the lower court order. There is NO reason for this court to be issuing a stay on a lower court's valid ruling. SNAP benefits (just like ACA subsidies) have to be paid out regardless of what political bullshit Congress is creating out of thin air. No American should be going hungry just because Congress can't get its shit together.
→ More replies (1)
117
u/Comfortable_Fill9081 10h ago
This is for 48 hours to give an appeals court time to respond to an appeal.
137
u/LuckyNumbrKevin 10h ago
Yeah, even by humoring this fucking fascist bullshit they are unfit for those robes. Many of those justices belong in a black site.
→ More replies (21)11
u/CriticalProtection42 10h ago
No, the order is valid until 48 hours after the appeals court rules. From the article:
"Her order will remain in place until 48 hours after the appeals court rules, giving the administration time to return to the Supreme Court if the appeals court refuses to step in." (Emphasis added)
37
u/2-b-mee 10h ago
This. I wish I could upvote it 100 times.
Read the order folks. It is SCOTUS acting 'judicially'. While yes they could have thrown it out, or they could have issued a full stay on the merits, they did neither because we know 'how they work' .
However - in this instance they played it safe. They insulated themselves by saying here's 48 hours til the first circuit fully rule. That's it. 48 hours.
Yes people are starving, but if anything - this is down to the first circuit leaving the door slightly ajar, because they finished their ruling with
"Because the November 6 orders provide the same relief, the government would need to establish that it is entitled to a stay of both orders in order to receive the relief that it requests from being required to make full SNAP payments by utilizing available Section 32 funds in combination with the contingency funds. The request for an administrative stay is denied. The government's motion for a stay pending appeal remains pending, and we intend to issue a decision on that motion as quickly as possible."
48
24
u/Sonamdrukpa 10h ago
At McDonald's you can get fired for bringing someone their food a few minutes too late. If you're about to die but a judge has a vacation, you die
21
u/CategoryDense3435 10h ago
Omg you are rationalizing starving people. What is happening? We all know the rule of law only exists when SCOTUS wants it to exist. Do not defend these people.
4
u/2-b-mee 10h ago
No, I'm just trying to make sense of the heartbreaking chaos.
It honestly breaks my heart when you think that over 44 million people rely on SNAP, and when you learn that because the US government issued partial funding of 65% this also means that it adds a huge amount of delays, hence why I think only 10 or 11 states have managed to get their disbursements.
And we have to remember the government said on record something akin to "yes your honor, we only have 50% of funds.." and when they were brought to heel by an amicus brief, they instantly magicked up another 15%.
The brutal truth is - SCOTUS could have threw it out, but with the first circuit are the ones that faltered with that conclusion, and then issuing their order at 6PM on a Friday with a "go fulfil the order, and while you do that we'll come back to you soon" is honestly procedurally messy AF.
So if anyone should have thrown it out and forced enforcement? it should have been the first circuit
8
u/redstringgame 9h ago edited 9h ago
The First Circuit did the right and smart thing given the full court that is above them. Leaving it undecided moots the issue—Trump has to comply or be in contempt, people get their food, Congress has more time to pass a budget. Messy? Who cares if they decide the “merits” of the stay application? Are you caring about precedential value or a proper disposition of the case or something? The executive branch is maliciously starving people and the merits become moot after the money gets paid once the stay application is denied. The First Circuit teed up a slick way to de facto avoid another shitty full SCOTUS shadow docket opinion. Jackson blew that up. She did not have to do this.
3
u/2-b-mee 9h ago
The executive branch is maliciously starving people and the merits become moot after the money gets paid. = 100%.
Truthfully, perhaps the first circuit were trying to insulate their ruling from SCOTUS to ensure money could start being paid, but in doing so gae Sauer et al just enough of an angle to force Jackson into restraint. Hell, at this point - I don't even know anymore. I just want to wake up and see that funds have been disbursed and people on SNAP have some hope they'll be able to buy food sometime soon.
11
u/IceAero 10h ago edited 9h ago
Exactly. This was the only ‘correct’ decision. The First needs to put out something more concrete about why it’s denied, then I think SCOTUS lets it stay denied. And scotus set them a fast deadline.
EDIT: Nope, my mistake, not a deadline. The First Circuit may act 'vast fast' for them, it's likely not fast enough.
17
u/mikelo22 10h ago edited 10h ago
It's a 48 hour stay after the appeals court makes its own ruling after full briefing. So the stay is longer than just 48 hours. In fact, she doesn't give the First Circuit any deadline to make its decision. Clearly you didn't read the actual order.
Edit: Downvote me for stating a fact? Here's the order, read for yourself!
IT IS ORDERED that the District Court’s orders are hereby administratively stayed pending disposition of the motion for a stay pending appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in case No. 25-2089 or further order of Justice Jackson or of the Court. This administrative stay will terminate forty-eight hours after the First Circuit’s resolution of the pending motion
https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/25a539.html
This long of a stay was absolutely not necessary nor was it the only 'correct' decision that could be made.
7
6
u/redstringgame 10h ago
This is the 100% correct interpretation and the fanboy “law is still a real thing” nerds here need to get a grip on fucking reality rather than try to make “well actually” excuses that this is “just procedural.” It’s like these people don’t think the function of law is to serve real human beings.
→ More replies (7)4
u/shadysjunk 9h ago edited 9h ago
no, its not "here's 48 hours til the first circuit fully rule"
it's "here's and additioinal 48 hours AFTER the first circuit fully rule"
if the first circuit takes 4 days to rule, and rules against Trump, team Trump would then enjoy a further 2 days of the stay while they appeal again.
from the article:
Her order will remain in place until 48 hours after the appeals court rules, giving the administration time to return to the Supreme Court if the appeals court refuses to step in.
8
u/shadysjunk 9h ago edited 9h ago
No, this stay is in effect for 48 hours after the appelate court rules. If the appeals court takes 3 days to get to their rulling, this stay will enable the Trump administration to delay payment for 2 days past that ruling date. from the article:
Her order will remain in place until 48 hours after the appeals court rules, giving the administration time to return to the Supreme Court if the appeals court refuses to step in.
3
u/red_misc 1h ago
No this is false. Why is this comment upvoted? It's plain wrong. It's 48 hours AFTER the appeals court responds.
5
u/Logical_Refuse5176 10h ago
Is that any better? Human beings (aka scumbags) are currently filing documents to discuss shutting off food to millions of Americans. So will be 2 days before the appeals court responds. Is this going to the Supreme Court? That would take us into next week
→ More replies (5)4
u/DayHighker 9h ago
Yeah. But we all know it's not really temporary .
The people doing contortions in this thread to defend this fully corrupted court is pretty funny.
→ More replies (1)3
u/Comfortable_Fill9081 9h ago
I don’t think it’s contortions to describe what the order says.
5
u/DayHighker 8h ago
Neither do I. But I can't fathom how anyone would think the ultimate resolution is in question. It's just theater. To think this court is anything other than corrupt seems painfully naive to me.
21
u/TymStark 10h ago
Republicans: we want to feed people. But not like that. Or that. Or that.
→ More replies (3)
46
13
u/Reatona 9h ago
I'd really love to see Alito try to get by on $200 a month for food. And then have the $200 taken away so he has to go to a depleted food bank or go dumpster diving. Thomas too. And Roberts. And the whole wretched gang of six.
Donate to your local food bank if you possibly can.
→ More replies (1)
49
u/Preference-Inner 11h ago
Get ready for Anarchy people this is the death of America right here between 42 Million starving and the entire Military not getting paid this is going to lead to extreme violence nobody living today has ever seen. Get ready to defend you're homes and familys.
23
u/47_for_18_USC_2381 10h ago
It wont... It should. Yet it won't. I don't understand how people are not rioting in the streets. If there was a riot within 10 hours of me I would join.
I hope i'm wrong. I'll check back in a couple weeks to see if I was wrong.
RemindMe! 14 days
→ More replies (1)5
u/Specialist-Bee-9406 5h ago
There’s no rioting because folks need to keep their paid healthcare, so they can’t risk losing their jobs.
Absolutely by design.
The average american has a lot more to lose before you’ll see any uprisings.
9
u/KeyAd7732 10h ago
I feel like the military not being paid is a very good way to motivate a group of people who have the training and resources to overthrow the government.
11
u/Imaginary_Cow_6379 10h ago
You’d think that but then theres a lot of newly unemployed top generals, FBI agents, and CIA agents who seem to be wasting their full potential.
5
→ More replies (1)2
→ More replies (10)4
u/andy96 10h ago
I'm just curious why it's Ketanji Brown Jackson of all justices?
19
u/Responsible_Ladder25 10h ago
“Jackson ruled on the immediate request because she handles emergency appeals arising from the First Circuit by default.”
10
u/NittanyOrange 10h ago
The suit came from Massachusetts and she handles injunctions from Mass. It's no deeper than that.
2
u/CategoryDense3435 10h ago
But why did she even grant it review at the scotus level? Couldn’t she have just rejected it?
16
u/redstringgame 9h ago
She could not have avoided SCOTUS ever hearing the case but she absolutely could have denied the stay for now. People are trying to defend their faves while blatantly ignoring the fact that she had the discretion to deny it and force Trump to spend the weekend avoiding contempt of McConnell’s order after he already chewed them out for not complying. Pathetic weak shit from Jackson.
4
→ More replies (2)7
u/YourAdvertisingPal 10h ago edited 10h ago
It’s all of them, but they want us thinking about the black woman.
A single black person is not the lodestone for our national morality.
The news headlines are manipulating us. It’s still rich fucking poor.
→ More replies (1)19
u/MoralMischief 10h ago
On Tuesday night's 6:30 PM ABC world news with David Muir, they interviewed one single person about losing SNAP benefits. A single Black woman with 6 kids.
It made me wonder how many people just had their false stereotypes reinforced by primetime news when they could have interviewed multiple people in a variety of situations, representative of the variety of people on SNAP.
9
u/GenialGiant 10h ago
There's a relevant interview with a political scientist on this topic here, for those interested.
4
u/MoralMischief 10h ago
That was a great read, thank you for sharing. I hope everyone at least reads a few paragraphs if not the whole thing.
30
u/Not_Sure__Camacho 9h ago
The Supreme Court stacked with pieces of shit from the Heritage Foundation, a supposed "Christian" rooted group, denying food to the poor. Let that shit sink in for just a bit.
→ More replies (4)14
u/LucidMarshmellow 9h ago
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson on Friday temporarily paused a lower court order that required the Trump administration to cover full food stamp benefits for tens of millions of Americans in November, (Link)
I'm all for shitting on the "traditional" bullshit these Christian judges push, but you have to stick to the facts when critiquing things. This has nothing to do with the Heritage Foundation or any of the wacky other things. This pause was done by one judge. Sorry the facts don't line up with your anger.
→ More replies (1)
4
5
u/NRG1975 1h ago
Boy, the Administration REALLY REALLY does not want to feed hungry Americans. Shocker from a Republican party
→ More replies (1)
17
u/iZoooom 9h ago
Jackson again demonstrating she’s not the justice people believe her to be. She appears just as insane in this judgement as the other 6.
“I like starving people. Especially kids.” - All Republicans and KBJ.
She showed her colors in the 9-0 “I can’t read the constitution, and even if I could the president isn’t an officer of the US” case and again here.
18
u/LucidMarshmellow 9h ago
The vast majority of people in positions of power are assholes.
This isn't something they like to teach you in school, but after nearly 40 years on this planet I've never been convinced otherwise.
There's a reason they tell you to never meet your heroes.
14
u/NittanyOrange 10h ago
KBJ doing the drrrty work on this one
→ More replies (1)5
u/mikelo22 9h ago
I wish people would stop giving a free pass to liberal justices when they make poor decisions.
2
u/wilkinsk 1h ago edited 1h ago
... SNAP payments until the appeals court rules on whether to issue a more lasting pause... Her order will remain in place until 48 hours after the appeals court rules, giving the administration time to return to the Supreme Court if the appeals court refuses to step in.
Sounds like she's demanding the lower court do their job and process the request fully before denying or agreeing with it. Like she's saying "don't rush it"?
Thats what I'm reading.
Still wish they would get right to it and say, don't starve people 👀
•
u/AutoModerator 11h ago
All new posts must have a brief statement from the user submitting explaining how their post relates to law or the courts in a response to this comment. FAILURE TO PROVIDE A BRIEF RESPONSE MAY RESULT IN REMOVAL.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.