- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Judge rules Trump admin must pay SNAP benefits regardless of shut down
Posted on 10/31/25 at 1:50 pm to Powerman
Posted on 10/31/25 at 1:50 pm to Powerman
Please describe with the most wisdom you can muster how this is an emergency
Let us know what definition you are using
You do realize that not funding is not an emergency right
Let us know what definition you are using
You do realize that not funding is not an emergency right
0
Posted on 10/31/25 at 1:57 pm to BCreed1
Trump needs to cross that line just like they do, even if it's just trolling.
Start striking down laws and rulings as unconstitutional.
Start striking down laws and rulings as unconstitutional.
Posted on 10/31/25 at 1:58 pm to BCreed1
Didn’t know about the ruling, the government is closed.
Posted on 10/31/25 at 2:06 pm to BeepBopBoop
Just dropping this here
quote:
Nominated by Barack Obama on January 5, 2011,
Posted on 10/31/25 at 2:14 pm to The Torch
quote:
I didn't realize the Trump Administration actually paid SNAP every month. Does he just cut a check
Uhhh, the USDA does, so kind of?
Lot of folks did not read the article. This is concerning the contingency fund in place for SNAP. The USDA says it can’t legally tap into it to continue SNAP funding since the underlying appropriation has lapsed. Others (including this judge) believe that’s not the correct interpretation of the statute concerning the contingency fund and that it CAN be used in this scenario.
The whole argument revolves around how you interpret the legal language around this contingency fund.
Posted on 10/31/25 at 2:38 pm to Powerman
quote:
The billions in contingency funds that are there for precisely this type of scenario?
The current contingency fund is ~$5B-$6B, it would sustain SNAP for about 2 weeks.
While this would indeed help, it wouldn't even cover the full amount people normally get and it wouldn't do anything for next month.
The real problem is that so many people are on the program and seem to be heavily dependent on it.
Posted on 10/31/25 at 2:45 pm to dafif
quote:
Nominated by Barack Obama on January 5, 2011,
Yep…. Obama pulling strings of his puppet to pin this snap crap on OMB.
Posted on 10/31/25 at 2:51 pm to BCreed1
We knew this was coming... 
Posted on 10/31/25 at 2:51 pm to weedGOKU666
quote:
The whole argument revolves around how you interpret the legal language around this contingency fund.
But the language is not ambiguous. Here's what it says:
"There is hereby appropriated to remain available without fiscal year limitation such sums as may be necessary for a contingency reserve to be used to make allotments to States to pay benefits under this chapter in any fiscal year to the extent that the amounts appropriated for such fiscal year under section (a) are insufficient to pay such benefits"
The important and unambiguous language is in bold. As of November 1, 2025, we are in fiscal year 2026. And the dems shut down the government with NO appropriation whatsoever for FY 2026 as it relates to SNAP benefits. Thus, the contingency fund, by its own terms, does not apply.
And, it makes sense. There has to be an underlying appropriation to use contingency. Why? Because Congress right now is perfectly within its power and right to terminate SNAP altogether and not fund it going forward. That would mean that SNAP would not exist for fiscal year 2026. If SNAP does not exist for FY 2026, then you can't use contingency to fund a program that does not exist.
So, what this judge is REALLY doing is ruling that Congress must fund SNAP in the future. And, if Congress funds SNAP in FY 2026, then there would be a contingency fund available. That's the real issue with this ruling. The judge is making legislation from the bench that, as of today, does not exist and may never exist.
Posted on 10/31/25 at 3:13 pm to BCreed1
A judge can force the executive branch to act??? Starting to think we should hold judges accountable for their bullshite.
This post was edited on 10/31/25 at 3:14 pm
Posted on 10/31/25 at 3:18 pm to BCreed1
Trump doesn't give a shite about poor people. Do they not realize this?
Poor fat kids starving is the least of his concerns.
Poor fat kids starving is the least of his concerns.
Posted on 10/31/25 at 3:54 pm to Ex-Popcorn
“as soon as possible”“as soon as possible”
quote:
The oral ruling by Judge Jack McConnell directing the administration to pay those food stamp benefits out of emergency funds “as soon as possible” came a day before the administration was set to cut off that assistance.
quote:Doesn't look like the judges totally dropped the hammer. CNBC
That judge, Indira Talwani, gave the administration until Monday to tell her if it will authorize at least reduced SNAP benefits for November.
Lawyers for the plaintiffs in the case before McConnell on Friday argued that the cutoff of SNAP benefits was an “arbitrary and capricious act” that had caused “a crisis” for the Americans who need food stamps in order to eat.
A Justice Department lawyer argued to McConnell that SNAP did not exist anymore because there were no congressionally appropriated funds for it as a result of the shutdown.
The lawyer, Tyler Becker, also argued it was the administration’s discretion whether to use up to $6 billion in contingency funds already set aside by Congress to continue issuing SNAP benefits.
“There is no SNAP program and, as a result, the government cannot just provide SNAP benefits,” Becker said.
“A shutdown is not an emergency,” said Becker, adding that if there was an emergency, it had been created by Congress in failing to appropriate money to keep the government operating.
Posted on 10/31/25 at 4:09 pm to Powerman
quote:
With what money? The billions in contingency funds that are there for precisely this type of scenario?
The contingency fund is for natural disasters. The contingency fund is only $5 billion and SNAP costs $8 billion. Last I checked $5 billion won’t pay an $8 billion bill.
ETA: Correction the emergency funds are $6 billion which is still short of the $8 billion that SNAP needs.
This post was edited on 10/31/25 at 4:30 pm
Posted on 10/31/25 at 4:12 pm to WeeWee
quote:
Last I checked $5 billion won’t pay an $8 billion bill.
Liberals - “It was my understanding there would be no math involved.”
Posted on 10/31/25 at 4:14 pm to BCreed1
Obama judge = 4th branch of government
Posted on 10/31/25 at 4:21 pm to bigjoe1
quote:
Indira Talwani
Daughter of an Indian immigrant
Posted on 10/31/25 at 4:29 pm to BCreed1
These judges think they are the whole of Government, both executive, legislative and judicial. This is clearly overreach. I hope Trump Admin fights this on principle.
How can it be an emergency when the Dems in congress deliberately caused the shutdown? Then Dems in the MA and RI legislature ask a federal judge to force the executive keep paying...so what we have is the Dems cause the problem, the dems complain about the problem and dem judge forces the executive to keep funding dem supported groups who are negatively impacted by their own actions. This is as close to what a coupe is that I've seen in my lifetime.
This whole thing is rotten as even if the order is ignored or overturned on appeal it will leave Trump looking like he doesn't care about the poor when it was the Dems who have voted 13 times to keep the government closed. I hope MAGA gets what's going on here but I fear with trumps move to lower the vote from 60 to 50 that the GOP are going to cave.
How can it be an emergency when the Dems in congress deliberately caused the shutdown? Then Dems in the MA and RI legislature ask a federal judge to force the executive keep paying...so what we have is the Dems cause the problem, the dems complain about the problem and dem judge forces the executive to keep funding dem supported groups who are negatively impacted by their own actions. This is as close to what a coupe is that I've seen in my lifetime.
This whole thing is rotten as even if the order is ignored or overturned on appeal it will leave Trump looking like he doesn't care about the poor when it was the Dems who have voted 13 times to keep the government closed. I hope MAGA gets what's going on here but I fear with trumps move to lower the vote from 60 to 50 that the GOP are going to cave.
This post was edited on 10/31/25 at 4:36 pm
Posted on 10/31/25 at 4:34 pm to hansenthered1
The left are just using this in the media are using this to blame Trump for the shutdown and for the snap benefits not going out.
Posted on 10/31/25 at 4:38 pm to dafif
quote:
How is it on trump or the administration? Who handles the snap payments? With what money?
SNAP benefits are managed by the states. The states issue the payments to individuals and get reimbursed by the feds.
So if the feds stop paying, the states would be the ones to go broke paying the benefits without federal reimbursements.
Posted on 10/31/25 at 4:42 pm to BCreed1
So is the administration just going to say “no” or are they actually forced to abide?
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News