Legal AF by MeidasTouch Trump Skewered by Judges before SNAP Deadline
7 snips
Oct 31, 2025 Two judges have intervened to ensure $6 billion in SNAP funding reaches 40 million Americans at risk of losing food assistance. One judge took a cautious approach, requiring a plan from the agency, while the other issued a direct order for immediate payments. The contrasting legal strategies, both aimed at the same goal, highlight the ongoing political and humanitarian stakes involved. With many affected individuals being Trump voters, the situation underscores the broader implications of these rulings and calls for quick congressional action.
AI Snips
Chapters
Transcript
Episode notes
Parallel Lawsuits, Same Outcome
- Two separate federal lawsuits in Rhode Island and Massachusetts forced the administration to consider using $6 billion in contingency SNAP funds to avoid mass hunger.
- The cases reached the same result through different legal paths targeting the USDA's refusal to allocate contingency and Section 32 funds.
Contingency And Section 32 Funds Exist
- There are about $6 billion in contingency SNAP funds and additional Section 32 funds that can cover shortfalls.
- The court opinions emphasize statutory authority to use these funds during funding gaps to avoid widespread hunger.
Different Judicial Styles, Same Relief
- Judge Talwani and Judge McConnell reached the same policy result but used different legal strategies to compel SNAP payments.
- Their divergent approaches reflect caution about Supreme Court reversals and readiness to order immediate relief respectively.