In a recent ruling, a federal judge issued a permanent injunction against President Trump, preventing the deployment of National Guard troops to Oregon. The judge determined the president exceeded his authority in federalizing the Guard, as the criteria for doing so, namely a danger of rebellion and obstruction of federal law enforcement, were not met. The ruling found Trump’s actions violated federal law and the 10th Amendment. The court’s decision, however, does not preclude future deployments if conditions warrant it, and the government is expected to appeal the decision.
Read More
A federal judge in Rhode Island has mandated the Trump administration fully fund nationwide SNAP benefits for November, citing the government’s “arbitrary and capricious” decision to only partially fund the program. This ruling, coming after a challenge from a coalition of cities and nonprofits, requires full funding to be delivered to states by November 7th. The administration, however, immediately appealed the order, despite prior court decisions mandating at least partial payments. The decision follows a week of mixed signals from the Trump administration regarding SNAP funding, and amid warnings from the Agriculture Secretary that funds beyond November are unavailable.
Read More
A federal judge in Rhode Island has ordered the Trump administration to fully deliver SNAP payments to states by Friday. The order came after weeks of uncertainty surrounding the program during the government shutdown. The judge determined the administration needed to use additional funding to ensure payments were delivered in full. This action followed a lawsuit alleging that the USDA’s actions were arbitrary.
Read More
Federal judges ruled that the Trump administration must utilize emergency funds to partially cover food stamp benefits for millions of Americans in November. The rulings rejected the USDA’s claim that it couldn’t use the contingency fund, which holds billions, to cover benefits amid the government shutdown. While the orders won’t cover all payments, both judges, appointed by former President Barack Obama, also stated that the USDA may tap into a larger fund to pay November SNAP benefits in full. However, millions of recipients will still experience delays in receiving their benefits due to the administrative hurdles involved.
Read More
A federal judge in Rhode Island blocked the Trump administration from cutting off SNAP benefits for 42 million Americans during the government shutdown. The judge ordered the administration to pay food stamp benefits “as soon as possible” after finding the cutoff to be arbitrary and causing a crisis for those relying on them. The Justice Department argued SNAP no longer existed due to lack of funding, but the judge mandated the use of contingency funds and exploration of other federal resources to sustain the program. This ruling follows a similar case where another judge found the suspension of SNAP benefits likely unlawful, and the Trump administration is expected to appeal the order.
Read More
A federal judge in Boston expressed skepticism regarding the Trump administration’s plan to suspend SNAP benefits due to the government shutdown, suggesting the process involves finding an equitable way to reduce benefits. The judge indicated a preference for utilizing emergency funds to maintain the program, emphasizing that Congress’s intent was to prioritize funding. This hearing occurred as the U.S. Department of Agriculture planned to freeze payments, impacting approximately one in eight Americans who rely on the program. The court considered the arguments of 25 Democratic-led states, and a ruling was expected to apply nationwide, regardless of the Supreme Court’s limitations on nationwide injunctions.
Read More
In response to Chicago and Illinois’ request, US District Judge April Perry issued a partial temporary restraining order against President Trump’s deployment of National Guard troops in Chicago. The judge cited unreliable descriptions from the Department of Homeland Security, stating there was no credible evidence of a rebellion. Perry asserted that federal law only allows presidential federalization of the National Guard under specific conditions, none of which were met. This ruling follows a pattern of legal challenges and restraining orders in other cities like Portland, with contrasting responses from governors regarding the National Guard’s deployment.
Read More
A federal judge issued a temporary restraining order blocking the Trump administration from deploying any National Guard units to Oregon. This decision came after the president attempted to circumvent a prior ruling against deploying Oregon’s National Guard by mobilizing troops from California and potentially Texas. The judge, appointed by Trump, questioned the federal government’s actions as a circumvention of her initial order. Both Oregon and California officials have expressed their disapproval of the president’s actions, with the Governor vowing to resist further attempts to deploy troops.
Read More
In response to the Trump administration’s deployment of National Guard members to Oregon, a federal judge issued a new, broader order preventing any National Guard members from being relocated from any state for federal service in Oregon. The judge found the administration was directly violating her prior order, which found no justification for federalized military presence in the state, particularly after learning that California and Texas National Guard members were being sent. The judge argued that the administration lacked a legal basis for bringing federalized National Guard members into Oregon, further asserting that there was no threat of rebellion or other valid reason for the deployments. Ultimately, the judge’s ruling was based on her prior findings that there was no credible legal justification for the deployment of National Guard members in Portland, and the court found the reassignment of National Guard members appeared to violate both federal law and the 10th Amendment.
Read More
A federal judge in Oregon issued a temporary restraining order, blocking the Trump administration from deploying the National Guard to Portland, citing the president exceeding constitutional authority. The ruling comes amid the administration’s efforts to crack down on Democratic-led cities. The judge found that the incidents cited by the administration did not warrant the use of the National Guard. Similar efforts have also been attempted in Chicago, where the administration cited protests and unrest to justify the deployment of federal troops.
Read More
John Q. Hosedrinker