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
A federal judge ruled that Kari Lake cannot unilaterally fire Voice of America Director Michael Abramowitz, as it violates the law requiring backing from an advisory panel. The judge also determined that Abramowitz’s attempted reassignment was illegal. The court rebuffed arguments from the Justice Department regarding executive power and the constitutionality of protecting Voice of America’s journalistic independence. Furthermore, the judge cited that Congress had established safeguards to insulate the network from political pressure, which Lake was found to be circumventing. The Trump administration, under Lake, had been actively trying to reduce the network’s operations and exert greater ideological control.
Read More
A federal judge in New Hampshire has ruled to certify a class-action lawsuit and issue a preliminary injunction against President Trump’s executive order ending birthright citizenship. This ruling, which will protect all children affected by the order, follows a Supreme Court decision that limited the scope of nationwide injunctions and gave lower courts a deadline to act. The lawsuit, filed on behalf of a pregnant woman and parents of infants, challenges the executive order’s interpretation of the 14th Amendment. The judge found the government’s arguments unpersuasive and determined that the deprivation of U.S. citizenship would cause irreparable harm.
Read More
A federal judge recently released the written details of a ruling that rebuked the Trump administration’s cancellation of National Institutes of Health grants, deeming the action illegal. Despite limitations imposed by subsequent Supreme Court decisions, the court maintains that the government’s actions were arbitrary and capricious. The ruling highlights that the government failed to establish a clear justification for the grant cancellations, leading to officials canceling grants without evaluating their scientific merit. This lack of clear policy and subsequent attempts to retroactively justify the actions prompted several officials to resign.
Read More
John Q. Hosedrinker