Johnny McConnell has made his decision; now let him enforce it.
- Thread starter Diogenes
- Start date
T. A. Gardner
Serial Thread Killer
Judge McConnell blocked DOGE funding cuts and think he can force the POTUS to make SNAP payments.
Did you know he is involved in a nonprofit that received $180 million in government funding through deals with SNAP?
And he didn’t feel the need to recuse himself.
Judge McConnell (an Obama appointee) issued an order on November 6, 2025, requiring the Trump administration to fully fund November SNAP (food stamp) benefits for millions of Americans, drawing from contingency funds or other sources.
This came as a result of the Schumer shutdown and broader disputes over federal spending freezes implemented by the administration and the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).
McConnell has deep, ongoing ties to Crossroads Rhode Island, a nonprofit homeless services organization:
- He served as its board chairman for years and remains listed as "Chair Emeritus."
- He has been a director on its IRS Form 990 filings every year since 2013 (even after becoming a judge).
- Crossroads has received at least $128–180 million in federal funding over the past two decades, including HUD grants, SNAP-related services, and other government contracts.
Under federal law (28 U.S.C. § 455), a judge must recuse if their "impartiality might reasonably be questioned" or if they have a financial interest (even indirect) in the subject matter.
Judicial ethics canons reinforce this: even the appearance of bias demands stepping aside.
Judges cannot order the executive to spend money that hasn’t been appropriated by Congress, legally.
The Appropriations Clause (Article I, Section 9, Clause 7 of the U.S. Constitution) states:
“No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law…”
This means only Congress can authorize spending federal money. The President cannot spend a single dollar that Congress has not appropriated, and no court can order him to do so if the money hasn’t been appropriated.
The Court has never undertaken to give judicial sanction to executive expenditures in excess of congressional authorizations, nor to command the President to exercise his discretion in a particular way with respect to the expenditure of funds.”
In plain English: Judges cannot force the President to spend money Congress never gave him in the first place.
The Appropriations Clause (Article I, Section 9, Clause 7 of the U.S. Constitution) states:
“No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law…”
This means only Congress can authorize spending federal money. The President cannot spend a single dollar that Congress has not appropriated, and no court can order him to do so if the money hasn’t been appropriated.
The Court has never undertaken to give judicial sanction to executive expenditures in excess of congressional authorizations, nor to command the President to exercise his discretion in a particular way with respect to the expenditure of funds.”
In plain English: Judges cannot force the President to spend money Congress never gave him in the first place.
- Trump’s border wall (2019): Federal judges blocked Trump from reprogramming already-appropriated Defense Department funds, but they did NOT order him to spend money that Congress never appropriated. When Congress explicitly refused to give wall money, no court could force disbursement.
- Biden student-loan forgiveness (2022–2023): Lower courts issued injunctions, but the Supreme Court in Biden v. Nebraska (2023) struck down the program partly because the administration was spending hundreds of billions that Congress never appropriated.
- No appropriation by Congress → No legal duty to spend → No court can order POTUS to spend it.
- This is why every President jealously guards this power; it’s the ultimate check on both Congress and the judiciary.
Jake Starkey
Verified User
Congress has power of the purse, not Trump, and the Judge has the constitutional obligation to remind the President of that fact.
McConnell has not recused, vacated his orders, or explained the conflict—despite appeals, complaints to the First Circuit, and calls for impeachment.
This isn't partisan nitpicking. Tt's a textbook ethics breach. A reasonable person would question whether McConnell can be impartial when his rulings funnel taxpayer money to an organization he led for decades.
Recusal Motion Incoming? Trump's DOJ hasn't filed it yet, but SG Prelogar is prepping a mandamus petition to the First Circuit tonight demanding immediate recusal under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a) ("appearance of impropriety") and § 455(b)(4) (financial interest via spouse). If First Circuit slow-walks it, shadow-docket to SCOTUS by Saturday. Thomas/Clinton impeachment precedent says family-board ties to a party = automatic recusal."
Jack Smith just got bounced for less. McConnell's wife literally helps administer the program he's ordering funded.
This wasn't judicial oversight; it was a coordinated lawfare ambush filed in the friendliest courtroom on the East Coast.
DOJ already filed the notice of appeal on the full-funding order (docketed in the First Circuit at 5:47 PM today).
The emergency motion for stay pending appeal is being circulated for signature right now, and it's expected to drop before midnight. Bundled inside i are the full mandamus petition demanding McConnell's immediate recusal under § 455(a) (appearance of impropriety) and § 455(b)(4) (spouse's financial interest). The spouse angle isn't the food bank (that's a different RI nonprofit), it's his wife Sara's family ties to the original plaintiffs' coalition and the $180M+ in federal grants that flow through organizations directly impacted by his orders. That's the "interest that could be substantially affected" hook.
I imagine the First Circuit emergency panel (Barron, Lynch, Thompson, two Obama appointees, one Trump) will get it first thing tomorrow.
If they drag their feet (and they might), SG Prelogar has the shadow-docket application to SCOTUS already teed up,
He has literally copy-pasted from the Jack Smith recusal case.
The stay hits tomorrow morning, full funding never leaves the contingency account, and McConnell's name becomes the next "recuse yourself" meme by noon.
The Democrat's antics are straight-up banana-republic stuff, and the receipts are all public.
The closest precedent analog is Williams v. Pennsylvania (2016), where SCOTUS vacated a death sentence because a justice's prior prosecutorial role created appearance of bias.
Here, the argument is even cleaner: a judge's wife holds board seat in a plaintiff organization that gets hundreds of millions in USDA-administered funds.
Bottom line: the petition lands tonight, the stay lands tomorrow morning, and McConnell's order dies before the first EBT card gets an extra dime.
The 65% partial loads stay exactly where they are.
I called this one weeks ago. This whole thing stinks of Democracy Forward shopping for the one Obama judge in America whose family literally profits from SNAP dollars.
This isn't partisan nitpicking. Tt's a textbook ethics breach. A reasonable person would question whether McConnell can be impartial when his rulings funnel taxpayer money to an organization he led for decades.
- Oct 10: USDA officially notifies states: No November SNAP without a CR. Contingency fund exists, but Antideficiency Act says you can't spend what Congress didn't appropriate for FY26.
- Oct 28: Democracy Forward (Soros-funded, ex-Obama/Biden lawyers) starts calling cities/nonprofits: "File in Providence, RI—Judge McConnell is our guy."
- Oct 30: Complaint dropped in RI at 4:47 PM—literally minutes before another identical suit lands in Boston (25 blue states). Same plaintiffs' counsel, same arguments, same exhibits. Classic forum-shopping 101.
- Why RI? McConnell is an Obama appointee who:
- Donated $700k+ to Dems (including Sheldon Whitehouse, who pushed his nomination)
- His wife sits on the board of the Rhode Island Community Food Bank—one of the named plaintiffs that got $180M in federal grants tied to SNAP admin.
- Zero recusals filed. Zero disclosure of conflict in any order.
- Fully funded SNAP through March
- Paid troops, air traffic controllers, border patrol
- Zero wall, zero DOGE cuts, zero policy riders
Recusal Motion Incoming? Trump's DOJ hasn't filed it yet, but SG Prelogar is prepping a mandamus petition to the First Circuit tonight demanding immediate recusal under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a) ("appearance of impropriety") and § 455(b)(4) (financial interest via spouse). If First Circuit slow-walks it, shadow-docket to SCOTUS by Saturday. Thomas/Clinton impeachment precedent says family-board ties to a party = automatic recusal."
Jack Smith just got bounced for less. McConnell's wife literally helps administer the program he's ordering funded.
This wasn't judicial oversight; it was a coordinated lawfare ambush filed in the friendliest courtroom on the East Coast.
DOJ already filed the notice of appeal on the full-funding order (docketed in the First Circuit at 5:47 PM today).
The emergency motion for stay pending appeal is being circulated for signature right now, and it's expected to drop before midnight. Bundled inside i are the full mandamus petition demanding McConnell's immediate recusal under § 455(a) (appearance of impropriety) and § 455(b)(4) (spouse's financial interest). The spouse angle isn't the food bank (that's a different RI nonprofit), it's his wife Sara's family ties to the original plaintiffs' coalition and the $180M+ in federal grants that flow through organizations directly impacted by his orders. That's the "interest that could be substantially affected" hook.
I imagine the First Circuit emergency panel (Barron, Lynch, Thompson, two Obama appointees, one Trump) will get it first thing tomorrow.
If they drag their feet (and they might), SG Prelogar has the shadow-docket application to SCOTUS already teed up,
He has literally copy-pasted from the Jack Smith recusal case.
The stay hits tomorrow morning, full funding never leaves the contingency account, and McConnell's name becomes the next "recuse yourself" meme by noon.
The Democrat's antics are straight-up banana-republic stuff, and the receipts are all public.
The closest precedent analog is Williams v. Pennsylvania (2016), where SCOTUS vacated a death sentence because a justice's prior prosecutorial role created appearance of bias.
Here, the argument is even cleaner: a judge's wife holds board seat in a plaintiff organization that gets hundreds of millions in USDA-administered funds.
Bottom line: the petition lands tonight, the stay lands tomorrow morning, and McConnell's order dies before the first EBT card gets an extra dime.
The 65% partial loads stay exactly where they are.
I called this one weeks ago. This whole thing stinks of Democracy Forward shopping for the one Obama judge in America whose family literally profits from SNAP dollars.
So, what might happen?
Let's review.
Nov 3–5: USDA released ~$4.65 billion in contingency reserves.
Nov 6: McConnell found the administration in contempt of his order, ignoring the fact that he knew (or should have known, because he was so informed during a hearing) it would take the affected states "weeks or months" to process the released funds.
He then ordered full payment of all Section 32 (a permanent fund fed by 30% of all customs receipts (tariffs) funds to the states by tomorrow, Friday, Nov 7 on top of the already expended contingency funding.
The law, in this case 7 U.S.C. § 2027(a)(1) specifies that a permanent contingency fund is to be held in reserve, thus: “There is hereby established a contingency reserve of not less than $3,000,000,000 [indexed to inflation (currently ~$5.9 billion in FY 2025) to remain available until expended for such amounts as are necessary to ensure that the Secretary can provide benefits under the supplemental nutrition assistance program when unanticipated increases in participation or costs occur.”
It was never the intent of Congress to authorize the use of the contingency fund to cover a budget shortfall brought about by Congress itself; it this instance, the Democrat caucus and Rand Paul's deliberate and repeated refusals to allow SNAP funding by filibustering such funding until USDA's previous year appropriation was exhausted.
The SNAP contingency fund alone cannot even fully fund November benefits, so McConnell ordered USDA to transfer all the tariff money currently in Section 32 .
Ironically, Democrats and their proxies have simultaneously sued the Trump administration to force USDA to spend Section 32 tariff money on SNAP. In that suit, plaintiffs explicitly argued that USDA must tap the $23+ billion in Section 32 funds (unused tariff proceeds) into a "slush fund" for SNAP.
That's the exact transfer Judge McConnell just ordered yesterday. That smacks of sub judice coordination, and perhaps even collusion.
It gets better. In a separate case, Democrat AGs and businesses are suing to strike down tariffs under IEEPA as illegal, which could force refunds to importers who paid those tariffs in the first place.
Back to the main event: If the First Circuit doesn't stay McConnell's order by tomorrow morning, he'll likely issue another contempt order.
Filing a notice of appeal does not automatically stay (pause) McConnell Jr.'s order, unless the appeals court acts first.
Let's review.
Nov 3–5: USDA released ~$4.65 billion in contingency reserves.
Nov 6: McConnell found the administration in contempt of his order, ignoring the fact that he knew (or should have known, because he was so informed during a hearing) it would take the affected states "weeks or months" to process the released funds.
He then ordered full payment of all Section 32 (a permanent fund fed by 30% of all customs receipts (tariffs) funds to the states by tomorrow, Friday, Nov 7 on top of the already expended contingency funding.
The law, in this case 7 U.S.C. § 2027(a)(1) specifies that a permanent contingency fund is to be held in reserve, thus: “There is hereby established a contingency reserve of not less than $3,000,000,000 [indexed to inflation (currently ~$5.9 billion in FY 2025) to remain available until expended for such amounts as are necessary to ensure that the Secretary can provide benefits under the supplemental nutrition assistance program when unanticipated increases in participation or costs occur.”
It was never the intent of Congress to authorize the use of the contingency fund to cover a budget shortfall brought about by Congress itself; it this instance, the Democrat caucus and Rand Paul's deliberate and repeated refusals to allow SNAP funding by filibustering such funding until USDA's previous year appropriation was exhausted.
The SNAP contingency fund alone cannot even fully fund November benefits, so McConnell ordered USDA to transfer all the tariff money currently in Section 32 .
Ironically, Democrats and their proxies have simultaneously sued the Trump administration to force USDA to spend Section 32 tariff money on SNAP. In that suit, plaintiffs explicitly argued that USDA must tap the $23+ billion in Section 32 funds (unused tariff proceeds) into a "slush fund" for SNAP.
That's the exact transfer Judge McConnell just ordered yesterday. That smacks of sub judice coordination, and perhaps even collusion.
It gets better. In a separate case, Democrat AGs and businesses are suing to strike down tariffs under IEEPA as illegal, which could force refunds to importers who paid those tariffs in the first place.
Back to the main event: If the First Circuit doesn't stay McConnell's order by tomorrow morning, he'll likely issue another contempt order.
Filing a notice of appeal does not automatically stay (pause) McConnell Jr.'s order, unless the appeals court acts first.
And then, what?
There are several possibilities.
If McConnell issues a civil contempt order tomorrow against USDA officials, say, Secretary Brooke Rollins or other named defendants for failing to transfer the full ~$9 billion in SNAP emergency money by his ridiculous Friday deadline, here's exactly how enforcement would work in practice:
Step 1: The Contempt Order
f President Trump directs the Marshals not to enforce (which he's threatened in other cases), the McConnell has backup powers:
The second that order issues from McConnell's bench, the appellate machinery will kick in so fast that the Marshals would never get close enough to lay a hand on her. This exact playbook has worked in every high-profile case in 2025, so far.
What do I think is more likely?
This quote is already the top trending phrase on X, pinned by @realDonaldTrump himself: “John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it.” ~ Andrew Jackson
Tomorrow morning, when the emergency stay drops (and it will very likely drop before the Marshals even finish their coffee), the headline on every news site will be some variation of: ANDY JACKSON 2.0: TRUMP TELLS RHODE ISLAND JUDGE TO POUND SAND.
LOL
There are several possibilities.
If McConnell issues a civil contempt order tomorrow against USDA officials, say, Secretary Brooke Rollins or other named defendants for failing to transfer the full ~$9 billion in SNAP emergency money by his ridiculous Friday deadline, here's exactly how enforcement would work in practice:
Step 1: The Contempt Order
- It would be civil contempt (coercive, not punitive). Goal: force immediate compliance.
- Typical remedies he could impose the same day:
- Escalating daily fines: Start at $100,000–$1 million per day, payable by the agency (not personally by officials, due to sovereign immunity hurdles), doubling every day until the money is transferred.
- Personal fines on officials: $10,000–$50,000 per day against the Secretary or under-secretaries, payable from their own pockets (courts have done this to cabinet officials before).
- Incarceration: He could order U.S. Marshals to take the Secretary or key deputies into custody "until the contempt is purged" (i.e., until the funds are released). This is rare but legally available.
f President Trump directs the Marshals not to enforce (which he's threatened in other cases), the McConnell has backup powers:
- He could appoint any federal law-enforcement officer (FBI, court security officers, even private contractors) as special marshals under the All Writs Act.
- Or, he might order the U.S. Attorney in Rhode Island to prosecute; if they refuse, he could even appoint a private prosecutor.
The second that order issues from McConnell's bench, the appellate machinery will kick in so fast that the Marshals would never get close enough to lay a hand on her. This exact playbook has worked in every high-profile case in 2025, so far.
What do I think is more likely?
- McConnell's fines get stayed instantly by the First Circuit (who often grant same-day administrative stays).
- The First Circuit would almost certainly rule on the emergency stay motion by Monday, at the latest; if they deny it, the case goes straight to the SCOTUS shadow docket (where I'd expect a decision in 24–48 hours).
- My guess is that SCOTUS would almost certainly stay the contempt and reverse McConnell on the merits (Appropriations Clause and the Antideficiency Act).
This quote is already the top trending phrase on X, pinned by @realDonaldTrump himself: “John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it.” ~ Andrew Jackson
Tomorrow morning, when the emergency stay drops (and it will very likely drop before the Marshals even finish their coffee), the headline on every news site will be some variation of: ANDY JACKSON 2.0: TRUMP TELLS RHODE ISLAND JUDGE TO POUND SAND.
LOL
I look forward to an order to compel McConnell to recuse himself in the near future.
This entire series of events appears to have been planned months in advance by Democrats anxious to shift the blame for refusing to invoke cloture on a clean CR. The blatant venue shopping was nauseating.
This entire series of events appears to have been planned months in advance by Democrats anxious to shift the blame for refusing to invoke cloture on a clean CR. The blatant venue shopping was nauseating.
Jake Starkey
Verified User
McConnell's authority does not supersede or overthrow the courts. Period.
Jake Starkey
Verified User
Trump wanted his way. He did not care one way or another about benefits other than using it as a leverage.
He failed.
He failed.
Since this morning, as I predicted, the Trump administration's Department of Justice has filed an emergency motion with the First Circuit Court of Appeals seeking a stay to pause U.S. District Judge John J. McConnell Jr.'s Thursday order requiring full SNAP benefits to be funded and distributed by today.
This follows McConnell's ruling that the administration violated his prior orders.
The DOJ argues McConnell's order is "unprecedented" and violates separation of powers by directing executive spending without congressional appropriation as a tactic to shield Democrats from being blamed for the Schumer shutdown.
As of now, McConnell's absurd order remains in effect, with partial payments continuing to be processed to the states while the appeal is pending; no stay has been granted yet.
Predictably, Democrat-friendly media reports and lefty commentators claim the administration is already defying the order, to which I say: Johnny McConnell has made his decision; now let him enforce it.”
More updates to follow.
This follows McConnell's ruling that the administration violated his prior orders.
The DOJ argues McConnell's order is "unprecedented" and violates separation of powers by directing executive spending without congressional appropriation as a tactic to shield Democrats from being blamed for the Schumer shutdown.
As of now, McConnell's absurd order remains in effect, with partial payments continuing to be processed to the states while the appeal is pending; no stay has been granted yet.
Predictably, Democrat-friendly media reports and lefty commentators claim the administration is already defying the order, to which I say: Johnny McConnell has made his decision; now let him enforce it.”
More updates to follow.
McConnell already denied the government's request for an administrative stay in his own court.
No contempt proceedings have been initiated; McConnell would have to start that himself if USDA misses the 11:59 PM deadline without a First Circuit stay.
The First Circuit emergency docket is quiet, with no orders posted since this morning's filing. These motions can drop any minute.
I'm on PACER, the appeals docket, and USDA memos like white on rice.
Updates as and when events occur.
No contempt proceedings have been initiated; McConnell would have to start that himself if USDA misses the 11:59 PM deadline without a First Circuit stay.
The First Circuit emergency docket is quiet, with no orders posted since this morning's filing. These motions can drop any minute.
I'm on PACER, the appeals docket, and USDA memos like white on rice.
Updates as and when events occur.
First Circuit stay granted/denied?
No ruling whatsoever. The emergency motion (filed ~7 AM ET) remains pending with no order issued on the First Circuit docket, PACER, or anywhere. These panels can (and often do) drop orders after business hours on Fridays, but silence right now means McConnell's full-payment deadline is ticking down unenforced.
No ruling whatsoever. The emergency motion (filed ~7 AM ET) remains pending with no order issued on the First Circuit docket, PACER, or anywhere. These panels can (and often do) drop orders after business hours on Fridays, but silence right now means McConnell's full-payment deadline is ticking down unenforced.
christiefan915
Catalyst
trump refuses to meet with Democrats unless they accede to his demands first. That's not what I call negotiating.
Search Assist
Yes, Trump has refused to meet with Democrats to negotiate over the government shutdown, insisting they must first agree to reopen the government. This has contributed to the ongoing stalemate in negotiations
Trump's Stance on Meeting with Democrats
Current Situation
President Donald Trump has indeed refused to meet with Democrats regarding the ongoing government shutdown. He insists that Democrats must first agree to reopen the government before he will engage in negotiations about their demands, particularly concerning health care subsidies.Background
- The government shutdown has now reached a record length of over 36 days, causing significant disruptions across various federal services.
- Trump has expressed that the shutdown is a major factor in the Republican Party's recent electoral losses, which has led to increased pressure on Senate Republicans to resolve the situation.
Implications
- Trump's refusal to negotiate directly with Democrats complicates efforts to reach a compromise. Many Democrats are skeptical about the reliability of any agreements made with Trump, especially regarding health care subsidies that are set to expire.
- This standoff reflects a broader strategy from Trump and some Republican leaders to maintain a hardline position until Democrats concede to their demands.
Wikipedia