Quote:A federal judge ordered the Trump Administration to continue paying SNAP benefits amid the government shutdown.

Today is day 31 of the Schumer Shutdown and the funds for food stamp benefits were set to begin drying up on November 1.

More than 40 million Americans rely on SNAP benefits and the $5 billion emergency fund was not enough to cover the program for November.

Unions and nonprofit groups filed a lawsuit against the US Department of Agriculture earlier this week ahead of the November 1 cutoff.

US District Judge John McConnell, an Obama appointee, ordered Trump on Friday to use the emergency funds for the SNAP program.

CNBC reported:

A federal judge in Rhode Island on Friday blocked the Trump administration from ceasing to pay SNAP benefits that help feed 42 million Americans during the U.S. government shutdown.

The oral ruling by Judge Jack McConnell came a day before the administration was set to cut off that food stamp assistance.

A Justice Department lawyer argued during a hearing that the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program did not exist anymore because there were no congressionally appropriated funds for it as a result of the shutdown.

The lawyer, Tyler Becker, also argued it was the administration’s discretion whether to use $6 billion in contingency funds already set aside by Congress to continue issuing SNAP benefits.

McConnell, in his ruling granting a temporary restraining order to plaintiffs who sued to maintain the benefits, told the administration to use those funds to maintain at least some of the SNAP benefits normally paid.

Link

#NFS

Another district judge enacting a nationwide injunction, when SCOTUS already told them to knock it off.

(10-31-2025 02:59 PM)TripleA Wrote:  Another district judge enacting a nationwide injunction, when SCOTUS already told them to knock it off.

whatever it takes to quash Congress or #groverII, Ja?!

Imperial Judiciary: Judges in 2 Separate Cases Order Trump Admin. to Use SNAP Contingency Funds

Quote:Federal judges, in two separate cases on Friday, ordered the Trump administration to use contingency funds to issue SNAP benefits as the benefits are set to run out on Saturday, given the lapse in appropriations.

We're one month into the Schumer Shutdown, and SNAP benefits (food stamps) have become the political football du jour.

There's a super-easy fix to this, of course: The Democrats could quit worrying so much about "leverage," and just vote to reopen the government. Instead, they decided to, yet again, run to court over it. On Tuesday, 25 states plus the District of Columbia filed suit in (where else?) Massachusetts, asserting, "on information and belief," that the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) "has funds available to it that are sufficient to fund all, or at least a substantial portion, of November SNAP benefits." The states essentially asked the court to rule that the USDA can't suspend SNAP benefits despite the lapse in appropriations and order the USDA to pay benefits out of its contingency reserve.

The case was randomly (cough) assigned to Judge Indira Talwani — she of "Congress can't defund Planned Parenthood" fame — and a hearing was set for Thursday morning on the plaintiff states' motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO).

The parties presented their respective arguments at the hearing, and Judge Talwani took the matter under advisement.

The crux of USDA's position is set forth in the introduction to its memorandum in opposition to the plaintiffs' motion for a TRO. The introduction runs for about two-and-a-half pages, so I will include an excerpt, rather than pasting it in its entirety here, but it's worth the read:

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (“SNAP”) is a critical program that, through regular allotments and extraordinary disaster disbursements (the “D-SNAP program”), helps to improve food security for millions of Americans. At its regular level, SNAP requires approximately $8.5 to 9 billion dollars each month. Unfortunately, the ongoing lapse in appropriations has left SNAP with no appropriated funds in its annual allotments account. As a consequence of this never-before-seen circumstance, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (“USDA”) was forced to suspend upcoming November benefits.

In their proposed order, Plaintiffs appear to ask the Court to order USDA to unsuspend allotments and let the system run with full benefits amounts (i.e., deposit full amounts on beneficiaries’ SNAP cards) no matter the absence of funds for such benefits. But that is no option at all. That would be a blatant violation of the Antideficiency Act, a criminal statute that forbids the United States from making such an obligation without an appropriation.

In their brief, Plaintiffs argue that the Court should force USDA to deplete its long-term emergency fund, currently containing around $5.25 billion, to provide SNAP benefits for November. But Congress has not appropriated any SNAP funding for fiscal year 2026. And depletion of the long-term emergency fund would eliminate money for the D-SNAP program over the coming years, a program that provides critical support in the event of natural disasters and other uncontrollable catastrophes. Even assuming USDA had discretion to reallocate these funds, the question of how to allocate limited funds among multiple crucial safety-net programs, when there are insufficient funds, is one that the agency is empowered to make—not a federal court, and certainly not Plaintiffs.

...

All told, Defendants understand that the lack of SNAP funds has created a difficult situation for millions of Americans. But as a matter of both law and practical consequence, it is not a problem that this Court can solve through the remedy that Plaintiffs here seek.

On Friday, Talwani issued a memorandum and order that keeps the motion for TRO under advisement but nevertheless compels the Trump administration to jump through certain hoops:

No later than Monday, November 3, 2025, Defendants shall advise the court whether they will authorize at least reduced SNAP benefits for November and, if so, their timeline for determining whether to authorize only reduced SNAP benefits using the Contingency Funds or to authorize full SNAP benefits using both the Contingency Funds and additional available funds.

According to Talwani's reading of things, the fact that Congress, in the 2024 Consolidated Appropriations Act, separately appropriated $6 billion to the SNAP program “to remain available through September 30, 2026” and “be placed in reserve for use only in such amounts and at such times as may become necessary to carry out program operations,” the government is obligated to use this contingent reserve. In her view, "the statutory scheme does not contemplate an outright suspension of the program while some funds are available."

Meanwhile, in Rhode Island, District Court Judge John McConnell Jr. issued his own ruling Friday afternoon in a similar case filed by cities and nonprofits.

In Providence, Rhode Island, U.S. District Judge John J. McConnell ruled from the bench in a case filed by cities and nonprofits that the program must be funded using at least the contingency funds, and he asked for an update on progress by Monday.

Along with ordering the federal government to use emergency reserves to backfill SNAP benefits, McConnell ruled that all previous work requirement waivers must continue to be honored. The USDA during the shutdown has terminated existing waivers that exempted work requirements for older adults, veterans and others.

As of this writing, the administration has not filed an appeal in either case nor issued a statement, but RedState will continue to follow these cases and report on any developments as warranted.

How can a court order the government to fund things where no money is allocated? They should peel back funds from the judiciary budget to make it work.

Quote:Obama appointed Indian Judge Indira Talwani is now ordering Trump to redirect funds meant for national emergencies or catastrophes to fund SNAP.

She is not the executive and does not get to decide how money is spent, nor can she declare a national emergency.

Democrats throwing a month-long hissy fit is not an emergency.

This is the same judge who tried blocking Trump from deporting Haitians, Nicaraguans, Cubans, and Venezuelans.
She was reversed by the Supreme Court.

Impeach, arrest, and make an example out of these illegitimate tyrants.

Dems don't care. The leftist jurists have long since lost any sense of judicial propriety. They simply want their side to win.

The political civil war just continues to escalate. Lord knows there is a lot of fraud and BS in SNAP benefits but there are also millions of Sr citizens and disabled Americans who depend on them.

Now democrats are willing to hang even those people out to dry over their TDS.

I was listening to a podcast about the civil war and an interesting comment was made.

The first Civil War started in 1861 with the Ft. Sumpter attack. The war between the North and South wasn’t called a Civil War until 1863.

Knowing that, if a second Civil War is inevitable, when will future historians determine when it began. Charlie Kirk’s assassination? Trump’s attempted assassination or the attacks on ICE agents.

Are we already living in the 2nd Civil War era?

Not gonna do it. Dems need to own it.

(10-31-2025 03:52 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  I was listening to a podcast about the civil war and an interesting comment was made.

The first Civil War started in 1861 with the Ft. Sumpter attack. The war between the North and South wasn’t called a Civil War until 1863.

Knowing that, if a second Civil War is inevitable, when will future historians determine when it began. Charlie Kirk’s assassination? Trump’s attempted assassination or the attacks on ICE agents.

Are we already living in the 2nd Civil War era?

It began when Biden* spied on US Senators and designated Christians, pro lifers and parents at school board meetings as terrorists.

Sure as hell won’t be over “SNAP” payments.

It’s always political theatre with The Crazy.

It’s all fake, a fraud made up to give insurance subsidies to 10-20 million people who shouldn’t even be here, I.e. the next Dim voters, they hope.

Do any of you get an insurance subsidy? I know we sure as fvck don’t.

They don’t give a damn about the American citizens that actually DO rely on SNAP, it’s simply an attempt to enslave the next generation of illegals into becoming their new constituency since they’ve lost everyone else.

Excepting The Crazy and the loons, of course.

Dunk… that’s a good point.

Many of these Leftist protesters are shocked when they are arrested. Many think it’s an RPG and they can simply go home when the situation gets out of hand.

This isn’t going to end well for the Antifa types.

Lets see them enforce it.

Trump screwed up bad not accepting the solo bill for SNAP.. now it 100% looks like the Republicans were holding SNAP hostage. That was a big mistake.

(10-31-2025 04:48 PM)memtigbb Wrote:  Trump screwed up bad not accepting the solo bill for SNAP.. now it 100% looks like the Republicans were holding SNAP hostage. That was a big mistake.

No it does not.

Frick snaptards

(10-31-2025 04:51 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(10-31-2025 04:48 PM)memtigbb Wrote:  Trump screwed up bad not accepting the solo bill for SNAP.. now it 100% looks like the Republicans were holding SNAP hostage. That was a big mistake.

No it does not.

Frick snaptards

It absolutely does. It was already like 43% blamed Republicans for the shutdown. You better believe that number is going to skyrocket after this. Republicans should have signed it and said "this is exactly what we have been trying to do. We arent the party trying to "leverage people"." but nope, screwed the pooch.


FRICK CULTISTS.

(10-31-2025 04:48 PM)memtigbb Wrote:  Trump screwed up bad not accepting the solo bill for SNAP.. now it 100% looks like the Republicans were holding SNAP hostage. That was a big mistake.

in a moment of dipshite-ism, he called for congress to bust up the filibuster and you come with that bs ... ummmmmmmmmmmmmmkay, chuckie...

at least get the criticism in the feedin' trough where it belongs...

oooopsy, I'm supposed to be an always trumpeter ... oopsie poopsie...

(10-31-2025 05:04 PM)memtigbb Wrote:  

(10-31-2025 04:51 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(10-31-2025 04:48 PM)memtigbb Wrote:  Trump screwed up bad not accepting the solo bill for SNAP.. now it 100% looks like the Republicans were holding SNAP hostage. That was a big mistake.

No it does not.

Frick snaptards

It absolutely does. It was already like 43% blamed Republicans for the shutdown. You better believe that number is going to skyrocket after this. Republicans should have signed it and said "this is exactly what we have been trying to do. We arent the party trying to "leverage people"." but nope, screwed the pooch.


FRICK CULTISTS.

you better believe they're going to torch the donktards harder, faster, and furious moving forward ... go rob something at ewer convenience sto' to get ewer yank and crank on...