While the Senate Democrats were busy caving, the First Circuit Court of Appeals issued its decision in Rhode Island Council of Churches v. Rollins. It refused to stay Judge McConnell’s order enforcing his original TRO. The First Circuit Court opinion is very interesting, and a bit complex. Stick with the thread, I’ll also explain how the case now intersects with Congressional action on the CR. #LawFedi 1/ https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca1.53495/gov.uscourts.ca1.53495.00108364355.0.pdf
Discussion
Loading...
Post
@heidilifeldman "... if the Roberts Court reverses the First Circuit, the First Circuit’s framing of the case would lay entirely bare the Roberts Court’s utter sellout of judicial authority."
I'm curious who you think doesn't already see this. It's been pretty clear that the Roberts Court has sold out the judiciary for a while now. Who needs to be convinced?
@starluna There are millions of Americans who are not aware and need the most obvious be convinced. Also, there will be no doubt about the historical record, making the Roberts Court’s lawlessness as obvious to future generations as the Taney Court’s is today.
@heidilifeldman I appreciate the historical records piece. I do think you have quite a bit more faith than I do that the people who are not aware and need to be convinced have sources of information that are going to help them understand.
The upshot of the First Circuit’s opinion is that it requires the Trump regime to fully fund November SNAP food benefits; however, because of Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s administrative stay of Judge McConnell’s orders, the effect of the First Circuit opinion is on hold for 48 hours. 2/
In its request for an administrative stay from the Supreme Court, the Trump regime indicated it would seek certiorari to have the Supreme Court reverse the First Circuit if the First Circuit decided to uphold Judge McConnell. So, we should expect a cert petition shortly. 3/
Now, here is where the content of the First Circuit’s opinion gets extremely interesting. The First Circuit takes the position that what it is upholding is McConnell’s order enforcing his first TRO in the proceedings in his court. That first TRO gave the Trump regime a choice: either promptly and expeditiously partially fund Nov SNAP from appropriated contingency funds OR pay full benefits using additional discretionary funds to do so. 4/
McConnell gave the Trump regime this choice because the regime had argued that it had withheld partial payment because it was too difficult to accomplish, bc all the SNAP systems are set up for the delivery of full payment. After being given the choice, the Trump regime informed McConnell that it would make the partial payment from contingency funds though in some states it would take weeks or months for partial benefits to reach people who rely on SNAP. 5/
Upon a motion from the plaintiffs, McConnell ruled that the Trump regime’s measures did not in fact comply with his original TRO because delayed partial payment was not an option he gave. So, he ordered the regime to implement the second alternative in his original TRO, to pay full benefits using discretionary funds. 6/
McConnell also separately ruled that the Trump regime had violated the Administrative Procedure Act in its decision to withhold discretionary funds to achieve full SNAP payment, because that decision lacked objectively good grounds and so was “arbitrary and capricious.” 7/
1+ more replies (not shown)
bonfire.cafe
A space for Bonfire maintainers and contributors to communicate
Automatic federation enabled