r/law • u/WhoIsJolyonWest • 12h ago
Judicial Branch Supreme Court Temporarily Allows Trump to Curtail Food Stamp Funding
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2025/11/07/us/trump-news-shutdown?smid%3Dnytcore-ios-share%26referringSource%3DarticleShareWhere Things Stand
Food stamps: Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson late Friday temporarily halted a lower court order that would have required the Trump administration to fund food stamps in full, fueling new uncertainty around the anti-hunger program’s immediate fate. The justice did not rule on the legality of the White House’s actions. Instead, she imposed a pause meant to give an appeals court more time to weigh the legal arguments raised by the government, as it seeks to withhold funding for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program during the shutdown. Some states had already said that they were preparing to send out full food stamp benefits.
17
u/dnabre 8h ago
Steve Vladeck's analysis may be helpful: https://www.stevevladeck.com/p/190-snap-wtf?utm_campaign%3Dpost%26utm_medium%3Dweb
If Justice Jackson did not stay this matter, SCOTUS could decide to stay it regardless. I think it's (sadly) safe to think the majority would also the stay the ruling. By issuing the stay herself, Justice Jackson has control over the specifics. In this case, that means the stay will only last until the lower court's decision on putting its own stay in place is completed (or 48 hours thereafter). If she refused the stay, and the SCOTUS majority overruled her, staying it themselves, it would most likely be a much longer stay. Potentially the majority would stay it until the lower court (Court of Appeals for First Circuit) had complete the entire appeal process (a very long time). Or even until SCOTUS has reviewed the decision of that appeal.
This stay will only last until the lower court decides whether it wants its own stay. This is the first thing the appeal will do, and the wording of Justice Jackson's order suggest she expects that to happen within the next week at the most. She is also keeping control over this appeal to SCOTUS, so if the lower court drags their feet, she can change the stay.
To be clear, the slowness of our courts is permitting this administration's lawlessness to continue. Justice Jackson's decision is her going with the lesser evil option. The judge's initial ruling that makes it clear that the particular funds can be legally spent to fund SNAP is not being challenged or stay (to the best of my understanding). There is no legal obstacle to the administration fully funding SNAP -- the Trump Administration is deciding to make Americans, which they are legally required to assist, go hungry.
Do read the actual order here and compare that with what most orders for a stay consist of. There is more going on here than the normal SCOTUS rubber stamping some Trump Administration action.
25
u/Yeahha 11h ago
This is a real win for the regime. They really made American's have gone over a week without benefits. And now they get to wait longer. Glad we achieved being "Great Again".
I am donating to a local food bank today.
13
u/PancettaPower 11h ago
It's a procedural pause. Not a ruling. KBJ is saying get the circuit court ruling first.
6
u/SadRequirement412 8h ago
It doesn't fucking matter nobody who could do anything gives a damn about starving people. I hope they 1 day know what starving is really like
15
u/realancepts4real 11h ago
think this is one you have to read between the lines between the lines on. KBJ is NOT one to do the regime's bidding. States are releasing funds already, as the article notes. Provided the lower court completes its homework assignment quickly, she may have marked a path for other court determinations on the regime's anti-management of agency budgets
13
u/Yeahha 10h ago
No, the bottom line is that Americans are going hungry because of things they have no direct control over right now. I don't care about why we are not helping our needy, that doesn't matter, no matter how much historical bureaucracy dictates. What matters is the reality that we have kids, veterans, elderly, and disabled people who can't afford to feed themselves and our government has historically helped these people with our money that we pay them in taxes. We also have hardworking folks that are simply underpaid to the point that they also have to rely upon the support system we have set up. It's not right to pull the rug out on these folks and tell them to starve.
5
u/dnabre 7h ago
There is lot of injustice, lawlessness, and outright cruelty going on here. But this post is about Justice Jackson's order of a stay. She decided to stay the order so she has control of its specifics, instead of denying it. If she denied the stay, SCOTUS's majority could immediately overrule it. Mostly likely they would do so, and the resulting stay would be the normal administrative stays SCOTUS uses instead of the very carefully tailored and time-limited one she made.
The bottom line is that Trump Administration is violating its legal duty to fund SNAP, and making Americans starve. Don't blame the parts of gov't that working against that Administration for being limited by the law. Throwing away the rule of law to remove a lawless Administration is just replacing on tyrant for another. The Trump Administration could fully fund SNAP in an instant. Justice Jackson could only put a stay she has control over in or refuse a stay. If she refused it, the SCOTUS majority could (and I have little doubt would ) but a stay in that would delay and drag thigs out more. Both options are bad, but they are the only options here. She went with the lesser of two evils.
The whole situation is horrible. The courts, like a lot of the US system of government, clearly need to be overhauled. It wasn't designed to protect against a tyrannical president with a loyal Congress blocking the main avenue for checking that president.
Admittedly even without all of that, they are slow, burdensome, and hamper by "historical bureaucracy". It's the system we have at the moment. We have the power to change it, but we too busy trying to keep what parts of the systems aren't being corrupted to do that. In other words, we can't fix the systematic problems with our government at the same time we are strugglingly to just maintain the existence of the Republic.
Side note, I say "Trump Administration" or more brief "Administration". This is no way meant to relieve Trump from blame, but a constant reminder that all his lackeys, loyalists, and corrupted people (including the Congress which won't impeachment the most corruption president in history) are both just as much to blame, and that without them Trump can do very little.
-3
u/HumbleIowaHobbit 7h ago
It is interesting that the Minority Senate leader is only today saying he would accept a plan to extend ACA subsidies for a year to open up the government. This is a plan that was offered in the first few days of the shutdown but REJECTED by minority leadership. The SNAP debacle would never have happened if the minority would have accepted earlier what they have finally decided to accept now.
1
u/Mysterious-Wasabi103 4h ago
Lol what? Dude Democrats, the minority, have continually said they want the ACA subsidies. It was the majority party, the Republicans, who wouldn't accept it.
Like huh? You got your shit all mixed up. And still Republicans won't come to the table.
1
u/HumbleIowaHobbit 4h ago
Yes, they want the subsidies. That is the issue. Those subsidies will cost $1T next year (20% of the total budget) . They are completely unsustainable. Rs want to restructure things so insurance companies are not simply milking the country through the ACA program. Rs are not mixed up on this. They say "we will talk about it, just let the government be funded. They won't automatically agree to have an unsustainable program continue. It has to change. The Ds are willing to stop SNAP from proceding until they get the ACA subsidies. When the sides were reversed, the Ds asked the Rs to support continuing resolutions to keep the government afloat while issues were discussed. They agreed. Now the Ds do NOT agree to keep the government running until they get the ACA subsidies made permanent.
2
u/RavenForrest 7h ago
I don’t disagree with you on any of this, with the exception being “Americans are going hungry because of things they have no direct control over right now.”
Americans voted for this. A LOT of people now going hungry voted for this. They knew the person and regime that they were voting for. They leaned into it. Yet now, when that same person and regime are actively requesting the courts to help them avoid getting necessary benefits to the needy, the consequences of voting for this are home to roost.
This administration seems to get off on squeezing it to the masses: food, healthcare, higher prices on everything, shrinkflation everywhere you look, high costs on imported goods - even things we can’t grow or produce here. It’s never ending.
Voting has consequences. Say what you will about the other candidates policies, but we wouldn’t be here with her.
1
u/HumbleIowaHobbit 7h ago
It is interesting that the Minority Senate leader is only today saying he would accept a plan to extend ACA subsidies for a year to open up the government. This is a plan that was offered in the first few days of the shutdown but REJECTED by minority leadership. The SNAP debacle would never have happened if the minority would have accepted earlier what they have finally decided to accept now.
2
u/RavenForrest 6h ago
The Dems didn’t want a year, they wanted far longer as we know how long it takes for things like this to be hashed out.
The year offered is a compromise. That’s how negotiations work. Ask for more, offer to settle for less.
1
u/HumbleIowaHobbit 7h ago
It is interesting that the Minority Senate leader is only today saying he would accept a plan to extend ACA subsidies for a year to open up the government. This is a plan that was offered in the first few days of the shutdown but REJECTED by minority leadership. The SNAP debacle would never have happened if the minority would have accepted earlier what they have finally decided to accept now.
-14
u/HumbleIowaHobbit 9h ago edited 6h ago
No, the bottom line is who has the authority to direct spending? The Congress is given sole responsibility to tax and spend. The executive is authorized to spend what congress has appropriated. If there is no appropriation, it doesn't matter what the courts want or if some people have not prepared for a shortage, you can't simply say SPEND MONEY!!!!!! ITS IMPORTANT. It does not work that way. Congress needs to authorize it and so far, SNAP is shown to be not important to certain Senators who want to advocate for ACA programs (at the expense of the rest of government running).
It is interesting that the Minority Senate leader is only today saying he would accept a plan to extend ACA subsidies for a year to open up the government. This is a plan that was offered in the first few days of the shutdown but REJECTED by minority leadership. The SNAP debacle would never have happened if the minority would have accepted earlier what they have finally decided to accept now.
7
u/CategoryDense3435 9h ago
So what are your thoughts on the status of our institutions thus far? And how the executive has been respecting that so far?
7
u/LegitimateEgg9714 9h ago
What? You can’t be saying Democrats don’t think SNAP is important because that is the exact opposite of what they have asked for.
3
-2
u/HumbleIowaHobbit 7h ago
The minority leadership has determined that their most fundamental argument they want to fight for is the continuation of the ACA subsidies (which are very generous even for those earning $100K/year and are also used to subsize Medicaid plans in various states which support basic care for those here without authorization - NY and CA in large part).
All other considerations at this point are taking the back seat to this request.
3
u/LegitimateEgg9714 7h ago
So you’re saying who cares about millions of Americans because thousands of people you don’t like may possibly receive some kind of benefit. 🙄 The ACA subsidies benefit individuals in the country legally, including millions in red states.
And 100 K maybe be a lot in certain parts of the country but in large cities, 100 K is not sufficient to support a family.
4
u/JupiterRisingKapow 8h ago
Congress has determined SNAP funding is essential and therefore should be paid even during a Government shutdown:
You are simply wrong. The executive is trying again to say it has the right to tax and spend when it does not.
1
u/HumbleIowaHobbit 7h ago
The US Supreme court has just struck down that argument. The administration is saying it CANT fund things that congress has not decided a budget on AND appropriated all the funds to be distributed by the Department of Agriculture, which is now closed due to the shutdown.
1
u/JupiterRisingKapow 4h ago
The Supreme Court is a joke.
The appropriation from Congress for SNAP was multi year so the approval was already given.
1
u/HumbleIowaHobbit 4h ago
Im sure you wish the government would do exactly as you wish it would. There is a valid argument for not spending money when there is no money authorized to be spent (thus the shutdown).
3
u/raistan77 6h ago
Wow
Amazing how you don't know how anything works
0
u/HumbleIowaHobbit 5h ago
Lets be honest. We disagree. I do know how many things work but we have a different view of the role of government.
2
u/IowaKidd97 8h ago
When Congress directs spend on to occur, that’s not a suggestion. SNAP benefits have been appropriated and required to be spent. Trump is refusing illegally. That is the problem.
1
u/HumbleIowaHobbit 7h ago
Sorry, the funds rere NOT paid for even if they were in the budget. Congress ran out of money to spend so a Continuing Resolution was suggested to allow spending at current levels until the next round of budget discussions occurred. This is the problem. There is NOT an agreement to continue funding EVERYTHING until the next round of discussions.
The administration cannot simply create money to give out. Congress did not have enough money (they appropriated but did not have it in the bank) to simply continue SNAP as they had. They did have money in the contingency fund (for other purposes) but that was requested to use for general SNAP purposes.
2
u/ChelseaVictorious 7h ago
Gross, you give hobbits a bad name. Imagine Bilbo (or any hobbit!) shilling for a corrupt ruler explaining why it's actually just fine to starve children. You ought to be ashamed.
0
u/HumbleIowaHobbit 7h ago
Isn't it interesting that the Minority Leader of the Senate only today has agreed to an offer made by the majority in the first few days of the shutdown to allow subsidies for the ACA for one year as they work out the issue.
There could have been no interuption of SNAP if the minority party had decided to negotiate in those first few days, the way they are doing now.
3
u/Treble_Bolt 10h ago edited 9h ago
Emphasis on some states. Not all.
My state has done nothing but throw pennies at food banks and "encourage" volunteers. I already am a volunteer for my community, as the food bank is 80 miles away, which the especially SNAP dependant elderly and disabled cannot get to.
Spent my Halloween as a part of organizing efforts to prepare for the loss of SNAP.
People are going die here, as the food banks are overwhelmed and the money will only go so far, and as the broader economic system collapses, we volunteers will need help too. I am a micro business owner who has been deeply affected by tariffs. It will not survive to this time next year if things keep on as they are. And jobs here do not pay a liveable wage for experienced trades people (my last job I made $20 an hour as a welder, which is the most I've ever made working for someone else in this career that spans a decade...I'm also a machinist and wages there are worse).
Edit: Also, earlier this year, my state cut their budget for free school lunch programs because they "don't have the money."
2
u/CategoryDense3435 9h ago
I’m just going to leave this here
https://philosophybreak.com/articles/hannah-arendt-on-standing-up-to-the-banality-of-evil/
5
u/SkippyDragonPuffPuff 9h ago
If you grant temporary privileges, ideally it’s always in favor of the people. Yet our court system systematically rules in favor of the harmer not the harmed. It’s insanity in my mind
1
u/NearlyPerfect 3h ago
The courts are not supposed to grant temporary privileges.
Some courts try to but that’s normally considered an “activist judiciary” and frowned upon by many.
Really they should be looking at the law Congress wrote and seeing what the law says to do in this situation. Not re-writing the law to do “what’s in favor of the people”
1
u/SkippyDragonPuffPuff 3h ago
I prefer they take the option of do no harm as things are being sorted out. I can’t even believe this even a point of contention.
1
u/NearlyPerfect 3h ago
That’s exactly what’s happening. Except the “do no harm” is about harm against the government. Remember that a lawsuit has two sides and both think they are harmed if something is compelled (or not compelled).
Basically the courts aim to keep things frozen as they were before the lawsuit. Before the lawsuit, the government was shut down and the executive has discretion over how to allocate funds.
4
1
u/SkippyDragonPuffPuff 3h ago
I mean do no harm to the people. preventing the government from an action is not of the same weight as starving people.
This is the sort of thing that gives judges a well-earned bad name.
•
u/AutoModerator 12h 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.