this post was submitted on 08 Nov 2025
486 points (98.4% liked)

News

37090 readers
624 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.


Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.


7. No duplicate posts.


If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.


All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/38674008

The supreme court has issued an emergency order temporarily blocking full Snap food aid payments.

The high court’s order came after the Trump administration asked a federal appeals court on Friday to block a judge’s order that it distribute November’s full monthly food stamp benefits amid a US federal government shutdown.

After that request to block was denied, the Trump administration turned to the supreme court in a further attempt to block the order to fully fund Snap food aid payments.

The application to stay reads: “If forced to transfer funds to Snap to make full November allotments, there is no means for the government to recoup those expenditures – which is quintessential irreparable harm. Once those payments are made, there is every indication that the States will promptly disburse them. And once disbursed, the government will be un-able to recover any funds. Worse, these harms will only compound if the decision below stands.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Drusas@fedia.io 163 points 5 months ago (5 children)

If forced to transfer funds to Snap to make full November allotments, there is no means for the government to recoup those expenditures – which is quintessential irreparable harm. Once those payments are made, there is every indication that the States will promptly disburse them. And once disbursed, the government will be un-able to recover any funds.

They are emergency funds. This is what they're there for!

[–] LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net 76 points 5 months ago

Losing a tiny amount of money from the federal budget is irreparable harm. But starvation? Just fine.

This Supreme Court is a joke. I just heard they’ve ruled with the fascists over 90% of the time.

[–] bear@lemmy.blahaj.zone 26 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I think they mean it's "harm" to not be allowed to starve people...

[–] tdawg@lemmy.world 13 points 5 months ago

To their sense of control

[–] einlander@lemmy.world 26 points 5 months ago

They could defund ICE and have money to spare.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] balsoft@lemmy.ml 80 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

How the fuck did they have the gall to write this

If forced to transfer funds to Snap to make full November allotments, there is no means for the government to recoup those expenditures – which is quintessential irreparable harm

I'm very much not a lawyer, I'm not even from the US, but even I know that irreparable harm is harm which may not be cured by monetary compensation. THIS IS LITERALLY JUST MONEY GIVEN TO THE STATES. IF THE DECISION IS LATER OVERTURNED THE STATES CAN JUST GIVE THE MONEY BACK FROM THEIR BUDGETS. This is the dumbest fucking shit I've read for a while.

You know what is quintessential irreparable harm? Medical complications or death from starvation. Which I sincerely wish upon the fucking monsters who signed this decision, which is illegal even by the already crooked pro-capitalist amerikkkan laws.

Y'all will need to relieve those injustices of their duties by force at some point. It doesn't seem like there's any other way.

[–] RizzRustbolt@lemmy.world 56 points 5 months ago (2 children)

It's even dumber than that. This was an order to use emergency funds set aside specifically for SNAP. Going before the Supreme Court and saying they don't have the funding is admitting that they stole that shit.

[–] buddascrayon@lemmy.world 17 points 5 months ago

Anyone not wondering where Trump got the money to fund ICE during the shutdown is a fool.

[–] Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works 10 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Its slightly more complicated. One judge ruled they have to use the emergency funds, another ruling said they have to provide full funding. Emergency funding is like ~5B, full snap payments for a month is like ~9B. So they would have to pull funding elsewhere, like from ICE. Which they totally should be forced to do, but that's just my opinion.

[–] Treczoks@lemmy.world 72 points 5 months ago (7 children)

So they want to starve people.

[–] Tire@lemmy.ml 35 points 5 months ago (4 children)

I think they want people rioting in desperation so they can declare martial law.

[–] ProfThadBach@lemmy.world 24 points 5 months ago (3 children)

That is a fact. They want an excuse to start deploying the military and I hope to God there's enough officers in the military that has enough balls to support the Constitution and not the fucking dictator. They are trying to push a civil war

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] RizzRustbolt@lemmy.world 11 points 5 months ago

No. They want to steal from people. The abject cruelty left in the wake of that is just an added benefit.

[–] YiddishMcSquidish@lemmy.today 11 points 5 months ago

It really sucks for the people that didn't vote for this, but for everyone who did or was too lazy to get out and vote... I will be taking great schadenfreude in listening to them complain.

[–] Joeffect@lemmy.world 10 points 5 months ago

I've been saying this for weeks, they want people to riot... they are trying to manufacture a reason to enact martial law...

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] TheReturnOfPEB@reddthat.com 68 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (2 children)

After a Boston appeals court declined to immediately intervene, Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson issued an order late Friday pausing the requirement to distribute full SNAP payments until the appeals court rules on whether to issue a more lasting pause. Jackson handles emergency matters from Massachusetts.

What the fuck is Justice Jackson doing ? Fucking I give up on the whole lot of them "Justices" now.

[–] mkwt@lemmy.world 153 points 5 months ago (5 children)

What the fuck is Justice Jackson doing ?

Here's one analysis:

Jackson gets this application because it's from the 1st circuit, and she is assigned to initially handle all shadow docket matters from the 1st circuit. By writing this admin stay, she potentially keeps the full court from stepping in and doing it for her. And this way she gets to set the 48 hour limit. This could cause the whole case to be decided one way or another a lot faster.

The supreme court let the trans passport case sit on the shadow "emergency" docket for 48 days. This stay gives the 1st circuit approx the weekend to make their decision, then the 48 hour deadline puts some oomph on the rest of scotus to make their decision.

If Justice Jackson did nothing, and 5 votes on the court intervened to issue a stay at 1 am, then there would be no 48 hour limit.

[–] JoMiran@lemmy.ml 61 points 5 months ago

The gold is always in the comments. Have some Lemmy Gold.

[–] Dionysus@leminal.space 33 points 5 months ago

God damn you bringing all this rational and logic to a discussion. ~~This is reddit dammit! ~~ I have been informed this is not ::: reddit :::.

Either way, damn you, I just want to be angry! No thinky! Angry!

[–] Ghyste@sh.itjust.works 10 points 5 months ago

Thank you so much for the breakdown.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] tonytins@pawb.social 9 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (2 children)

Trying to start a riot to force Martial Law, at least from what I've heard.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Archangel1313@lemmy.ca 53 points 5 months ago (5 children)

“If forced to transfer funds to Snap to make full November allotments, there is no means for the government to recoup those expenditures – which is quintessential irreparable harm. Once those payments are made, there is every indication that the States will promptly disburse them. And once disbursed, the government will be un-able to recover any funds. Worse, these harms will only compound if the decision below stands.

“There is every reason to expect that if the shutdown lingers, the court below will not command the government to tap these funds again in December to support Snap – blowing a bigger hole in the budget for the child nutrition programs.”

This is absolute bullshit. Those funds have already been allocated by Congress in the 2023 Farm Bill. The money is already authorized for use for the next few years. They don't need to "find it" somewhere else, or "get it back" at some future date. It is literally sitting ina find account, waiting to be used.

The only reason these benefits would be held up for any reason during a government shut down, is if the staff in charge of distributing that money are not currently working. That's what the $6 billion emergency fund is for. Paying the federal employees needed to make sure that money gets to its pre-authorized destination.

[–] Manjushri@piefed.social 18 points 5 months ago (21 children)

They don’t need to “find it” somewhere else, or “get it back” at some future date. It is literally sitting ina find account, waiting to be used.

You're assuming Trump hasn't already appropriated those funds and handed them to ICE or his rich buddies. How the hell can he loot the government if courts are allowed to force him to spend money where Congress tells him to spend it?

load more comments (21 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] RampantParanoia2365@lemmy.world 50 points 5 months ago (1 children)

....an emergency order to not assist the people.

JESUS FUCKING CHRIST WE ALMOST HELPED SOMEONE. SOMEONE IS SO FUCKING FIRED.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today 48 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (4 children)

So, let me get this straight -

Either the Dems surrender health care for Americans,

or...

MAGA is going to starve us to death?

Imagine when American citizens, even children, start dying of STARVATION in America because the wealthiest government in the world, led by dozens of Psychopathic Oligarchs, DELIBERATELY engineered it so they could pay less taxes?

Yeah, that's the government we want.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Formfiller@lemmy.world 48 points 5 months ago (3 children)

If the democrats win and don’t impeach these criminal Supreme Court justices …shit is going to hit the fan

[–] callouscomic@lemmy.zip 24 points 5 months ago (1 children)

They'll retake control in the midterms and do fuck all as they always do. Watched this my whole fucking life.

[–] YiddishMcSquidish@lemmy.today 17 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Seriously. Not getting aggressive with Nixon directly lead to trump and this whole criminal administration. Sherman didn't march far enough.

We really need more AOCs and the other three. And definitely more Mandami's, but aggressive, in local positions.

[–] BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today 14 points 5 months ago (2 children)

The Supreme Court Problem should be a top priority in the 2026 Midterms. People are already tired of being pushed around by the Supreme Court, which is supposed to protect us from government overreach.

Interracial and Gay marriage are on the chopping block under MAGA, and who knows what else these psychopaths will think of? People are scared of how the Supreme Court is being manipulated.

Dems need to run on increasing seats on the the Supreme Court, and impeaching Clarence Thomas for his many, many crimes.

Add 4 seats, get rid of Thomas, and the Dems would have 8 seats, and MAGA would have 6. And if a MAGA seat opens up, Dems need to go to war to take that seat, McConnell style.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] FanciestPants@lemmy.world 44 points 5 months ago (2 children)

So the argument is that "if we give people food, and then they eat that food, then we are harmed because we cannot make them give us back that food that they ate"?

[–] foodandart@lemmy.zip 16 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Well... I suppose the public could give them back the food they ate, after they ate it.. but it would be smelly..

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] MrSulu@lemmy.ml 42 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (2 children)

The argument made is saying that if they release funds, the states will spend the money, as intended, on the poorest citizens and there will be no way to recover the costs of feeding the poor. I might be being somewhat controversial here, but a smidgy little extra tax on billionaires?

[–] dellish@lemmy.world 15 points 5 months ago (2 children)

I really don't understand the argument at all. If we spend the money as intended we won't get it back? The fuck did they expect?

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] skisnow@lemmy.ca 41 points 5 months ago (1 children)

It’s shocking because of how easy it was for them to do the decent thing. Literally all they had to do was nothing, but they paid for the lawyers and did the work, and made a conscious effort to fuck over the most vulnerable people in the country.

[–] Newsteinleo@midwest.social 10 points 5 months ago

All to advance Trumps agenda

[–] FosterMolasses@leminal.space 40 points 5 months ago (1 children)

“Our attorneys will not stop fighting, day and night, to defend and advance President Trump’s agenda,” said attorney general, Pam Bondi

Tells you everything you need to know. And they finally free enough to just come out and say it.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Bonesince1997@lemmy.world 36 points 5 months ago

Like the messages on government websites blaming democrats for the shutdown, snap recipients should be directed to the homes of the members of the Supreme Court, to find who is to blame. Ruling on other's hunger. This is no high court.

[–] BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today 33 points 5 months ago (7 children)

How many reasons do the Dems need before they start seriously talking about adding at least 4.seats to the Supreme Court? That's the kind of bold promise that many people will vote for, especially if they are in interracial or gay marriages, because those won't survive another MAGA administration.

And when we take our country back, we also need to impeach Clarence Thomas, and imprison both him and his treasonous bulldog wife.

It's time to re-balance the Supreme Court.

[–] rothaine@lemmy.zip 10 points 5 months ago

Clarence Thomas for Guantanamo Bay 2026

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] switcheroo@lemmy.world 31 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

No food for you!

Ok just some food but not all

Kidding! No food for you! Bwa haha!

That's what this is like and it's horrifying. These are people's lives they're fucking with. People who live and work and pay taxes in this fucking country. And they re STARVING them. What the everloving fuck!!

[–] paperazzi@lemmy.world 24 points 5 months ago (6 children)

Sitting back here as a Canadian and wondering wtf is wrong with Americans. This okay for most of you? Cause this mf and his minions need justice dealt swift and furiously like NOW. Do you need Canadians to teach you how to circumvent the Geneva Convention or something to get the job done? Jfc unbelievable.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] toomanypancakes@piefed.world 19 points 5 months ago

Of course. Of fucking course. Why the fuck wouldn't they?

Fuckers.

[–] balance8873@lemmy.myserv.one 17 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Shouldn't this headline be "supreme court allows trump to dodge responsibilities for another week"? The court order was more focused on enabling godking trump than on whatever silly poor people shit they were supposed to be deciding.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Spacehooks@reddthat.com 15 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Supreme Court blocked student loan payments too. What are they allowing recently?

[–] FloatingAlong@lemmy.world 10 points 5 months ago

What are they allowing recently?

Whatever an openly corrupt administration wants.

[–] llama@lemmy.zip 9 points 5 months ago

They make it seem like families being fed is somehow the emergency that needs to be prevented.

load more comments
view more: next ›