127
Californians are beginning to see cash on their SNAP cards following major win against the Trump administration (www.gov.ca.gov)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/california@lemmy.world
12 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Hope this is true for other states as well.

all 12 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 27 points 1 year ago

These SOCIALIST BLUE STATES giving Starving Kids MY Tax Dollars! WHY can't they give that Money DIRECTLY to Walmart INSTEAD and Cut out the MiddleKids!

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    [–] 21 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    The ruling is for many if you read it:

    The courts also found that the USDA has $23 billion in Section 32 funds that it could use for SNAP. Today, the U.S. District Court of Rhode Island ruled that the administration must immediately restore full benefits to families, including the 5.5 million California recipients.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    And hours later it's reversed by Scotus temporarily.

    The Supreme Court on Friday granted the Trump administration’s emergency appeal to temporarily block a court order to fully fund SNAP food aid payments amid the government shutdown, even though residents in some states already have received the funds.

    A judge had given the Republican administration until Friday to make the payments through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. But the administration asked an appeals court to suspend any court orders requiring it to spend more money than is available in a contingency fund, and instead allow it to continue with planned partial SNAP payments for the month.

    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.

    Her order will remain in place until 48 hours after the appeals court rules, giving the administration time to return to the Supreme Court if the appeals court refuses to step in.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
    • [–] 8 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    To bad Oklahoma decided to listen and will only follow what Trump decides not courts.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Many other states didn't move as fast as California, and didn't distribute SNAP funds before the beloved SCOTUS issued a freeze on SNAP payments pending the Trump administration appeal. https://www.koco.com/article/appeals-court-ruling-trump-snap/69292456

    Judge Jackson, what are you doing? I thought you were all cool and that.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Someone in another thread posted this link, which basically opines that because the conservative justices would very likely have overruled her denial of a stay and then offered an open-ended stay regardless of any other factors, Judge Jackson jumped in to limit the stay to 48 hours, forcing a quick decision. It's a bit more complex than that, of course, but the writer thinks the wording of the stay itself is highly unusual.

    Well worth the read, even for non-lawyers, and easy to understand.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 4 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Thanks for sharing this. I kind of figured there would be some legal or strategic reason Justice Jackson would move this way. Seems she was stuck between a rock and a hard place and acted to try and enact the least worst option.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    No problem, I thought the same. She's very consistent and I did not see her doing that unless there was an upside to it. Apparently, however, in the interim between my comment and yours the full court has decided and the SNAP funding is blocked anyway. Props to @silence7@slrpnk.net who first posted the link.

    Edited to correct and add: My bad, it was another reference to Justice Jackson's extended stay and the full court has NOT ruled yet. My apologies.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • [–] 7 points 1 year ago

    Great to hear that. To hell with the Orange Turd.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •