Follow up to late night/early am 🧵re Rhode Island State Council v. Rollins (https://mastodon.social/@heidilifeldman/115524291694565783), here’s where we are this morning. Justice Jackson has ordered the Trump regime to inform the Supreme Court of whether it intends to seek review of the 1st Cir’s denial of stay of order to fund SNAP fully in Nov. 1/ #LawFedi
Discussion
Loading...
Post
@heidilifeldman
Sorry if this has been answered else when, but... Article 1 states that's that only Congress shall be able to allocate monies. But when the judge ordered the Chump administration to use already allocated funds, weren't they violating that? I understand the funds were allocated for situations like this, but it seems their order would run afoul of their Article 3 powers to interfere with Article 1 powers.
If Trump regime is seeking a lengthier stay of McConnell’s order to pay full benefits, they have until 4 pm Eastern today to file a brief in support; the plaintiffs then have until 8 a.m. tomorrow to file a response. https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/111025zr_3ebh.pdf 2/
Jackson wants to keep control of the stay situation for as long as she can. But, if Trump regime seeks a further stay of the McConnell TRO and his enforcement order, which was upheld by the First Cir, the Trump regime may renew its request to any other Justice. It certainly will, going to the rightwing Justice it thinks will act alone and grant a stay. 3/
Justice Jackson herself may refer any renewed request for a stay to the full court. If she wants an expeditious conclusion on the stay issue, she will do that. The question is whether it is worth it for her to deny a stay application so that there is at least a brief window of time - maybe only hours - during which the Trump regime must release further SNAP funds to the states. 4/
Here is the Trump regime’s letter today informing Jackson that yes the regime will continue seek a stay, and thus to withhold SNAP food benefits funding. https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25/25A539/384000/20251110100402567_RI%20Council%20Letter%2011.10.25.pdf. 5/
The letter previews the Trump regime argument for at least a longer administrative stay - that the possibility of Congress passing a CR and Trump signing is sufficiently imminent that the Supreme Court should just sit on the situation until it can rule that the entire case is moot. Since the majority of the Roberts Court is absolutely loathe to defend judicial authority against the Trump executive, this is a very likely scenario. But…6/
… if the Supreme Court administratively stays the enforcement order McConnell issued because the Trump regime disobeyed his original TRO, the jig is well and truly up. As the First Circuit noted, McConnell’s legal basis for issuing the enforcement order is pretty straightforward. Any delay on the enforcement order will clearly establish that the Supreme Court gives not a whit for judicial authority, at least not over Trump and his minions. 7/
1+ more replies (not shown)
if the shutdown ends before this is adjudicated, does this case remain ripe, or become moot? i can see admin attys arguing the latter, and everything starting again in february (assuming dems regain a spine, although there's no guarantee of that and lots of reasons to think they won't).
bonfire.cafe
A space for Bonfire maintainers and contributors to communicate
Automatic federation enabled