Lawfare update

Diogenes

Diogenes

Nemo me impune lacessit
G4nAxgqXMAAddO0


Obama-appointed Judge Indira Talwani has now, as I expected, ordered the USDA to redirect funds meant for national emergencies or catastrophes to fund SNAP and make the Democrats look live saviors.

She does not get to decide how money is spent, nor can she unilaterally declare a national emergency.

Democrats throwing a month-long hissy fit is not an emergency.

This is the same judge who tried blocking Trump from deporting Haitians, Nicaraguans, Cubans, and Venezuelans. She was reversed by the Supreme Court.

The USDA’s stance against using contingency funds differs from its 2018-2019 shutdown practice, as noted by the GAO.
 
Diogenes said:
G4nAxgqXMAAddO0


Obama-appointed Judge Indira Talwani has now, as I expected, ordered the USDA to redirect funds meant for national emergencies or catastrophes to fund SNAP and make the Democrats look live saviors.

She does not get to decide how money is spent, nor can she unilaterally declare a national emergency.

Democrats throwing a month-long hissy fit is not an emergency.

This is the same judge who tried blocking Trump from deporting Haitians, Nicaraguans, Cubans, and Venezuelans. She was reversed by the Supreme Court.

The USDA’s stance against using contingency funds differs from its 2018-2019 shutdown practice, as noted by the GAO.
Click to expand...
Of course she can.
 
As usual, Democrats filed in another venue-shopped blue state as insurance.

John J. McConnell Jr. is the Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island, having been appointed by Democrat Barack Hussein Obama in 2011. He has faced impeachment proceedings for alleged abuse of power.

The Obamunist judge obediently issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) earlier today, requiring the Trump administration to fully fund SNAP benefits using contingency reserves.
 
Jake Starkey said:
Of course she can.
Click to expand...


So you say.

However, the Appropriations Clause of the U.S. Constitution (Article I, Section 9, Clause 7) states that "No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law."

This grants Congress the sole power to allocate funds, and courts generally defer to congressional intent as expressed in statutes. The USDA argued that the contingency fund is reserved for "unforeseen events" like hurricanes or recessions, not funding gaps caused by congressional inaction, a position echoed in its 2025 Lapse of Funding Plan.

Precedents like Train v. City of New York (1975) affirm that courts can compel agencies to spend appropriated funds when Congress has mandated it, but redirecting funds from one purpose (e.g., national emergencies) to another (e.g., SNAP) raises questions.

The Supreme Court’s reversal of Talwani’s April 2025 TRO blocking deportations suggests scrutiny of her expansive rulings, indicating her authority is not absolute.

Legally, she can order the USDA to act within existing appropriations if she finds the agency’s refusal arbitrary or contrary to law under the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. § 706), but redefining the fund’s purpose could be challenged as overreach, potentially leading to an appeal or Supreme Court review.

Judge Talwani cannot unilaterally declare a national emergency. The National Emergencies Act of 1976 (50 U.S.C. §§ 1601-1651) empowers the president to declare a national emergency, subject to congressional oversight, including the ability to terminate it by joint resolution. This authority derives from the executive branch’s role in responding to crises, as seen in historical examples like Lincoln’s Civil War declaration or Roosevelt’s 1933 banking emergency. Courts can review such declarations—e.g., in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952), the Supreme Court limited executive action without congressional approval—but they lack the constitutional power to initiate one.
 
G4ngkMKXoAEYj_p


One potential weakness lies in the ruling’s narrow interpretation of presidential authority under the Elections Clause.

The judge asserts that election regulation is the domain of states and Congress, but proponents of the executive order might argue that the President has implied powers to safeguard federal elections under Article II, particularly when addressing perceived national security or integrity concerns (e.g., noncitizen voting).

Historical precedents, like the use of executive orders to enforce civil rights or election-related policies (e.g., Eisenhower’s 1957 order on desegregation), could be cited to challenge the ruling’s dismissal of executive latitude. If the order is reframed as a directive to the EAC to enhance federal voter roll accuracy, it might test the judge’s constitutional boundary-setting.

Another vulnerability could emerge from the ruling’s lack of engagement with recent legislative trends at the state level. Several states have passed laws requiring stricter voter ID or citizenship verification, reflecting a growing bipartisan concern about election security post-2020. The judge’s decision, by striking down a federal proof-of-citizenship mandate, might be seen as out of step with this state-level momentum, potentially inviting a challenge based on the Tenth Amendments' reservation of powers to the states.

Critics could argue that the ruling preempts state efforts to align with the executive order, creating a federal-state conflict that the judge did not adequately address.The evidentiary basis for the ruling could also be a weak point.

The judge likely relied on incomplete data showing "noncitizen voting is rare (e.g., NPR’s 2024 report citing 85 cases over two decade), but this data may not account for unreported or undetected instances, especially in a decentralized system.

Opponents might contend that the ruling underestimates the potential for fraud in an era of increased migration and lax enforcement, particularly with the attestation-only system upheld by the decision.

Without a robust analysis of current voter registration fraud risks—especially given the Pennsylvania case from October 2024 involving fraudulent forms—the ruling might be seen as insufficiently grounded in present-day realities.

Procedurally, the ruling’s issuance of a permanent injunction on partial summary judgment could be challenged as premature. By resolving the citizenship proof issue while leaving other provisions (e.g., mailed ballot deadlines) for later, the judge may have overstepped, especially given the complexity of the executive order.

An appeals court might view this as a failure to consider the full scope of the policy, potentially leading to an inconsistent application of law. Additionally, the speed of the decision—announced today amid pre-election tension—could raise questions about due process, particularly if the Trump administration argues it lacked adequate time to present counterarguments or evidence.

Finally, the ruling’s alignment with Democrat and civil rights plaintiffs might invite scrutiny over perceived ideological bias, especially in a polarized climate.

While the judge’s reasoning is legally framed, the timing and the judge’s Clinton-era appointment (as highlighted in the target post) could fuel narratives of judicial activism, particularly if the Supreme Court, with its 6-3 conservative majority, takes interest. The Court’s recent inclination to favor state autonomy in election matters (e.g., Moore v. Harper deliberations) might clash with the ruling’s federal preemption stance, providing a pathway to overturn



https://twitter.com/x/status/1984364026193748239
View: https://x.com/joma_gc/status/1984364026193748239
 
The Democrats' insistence to use the lives of SNAP recipients as "leverage" in their political schemes does not constitute an emergency or even urgency on the part of the folks that have already passed a continuing resolution.
 
Damocles said:
The Democrats' insistence to use the lives of SNAP recipients as "leverage" in their political schemes does not constitute an emergency or even urgency on the part of the folks that have already passed a continuing resolution.
Click to expand...


Well, I called it a couple of days ago.

Last night's post:

Diogenes said:
Update:

  • During a one-hour hearing before U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani (an Obama appointee) yesterday, lawyers for Democrat-dominated states and the District of Columbia pressed for the TRO.
  • Justice Department attorney Jason Altabet argued the USDA lacks authority without congressional appropriations, but Judge Talwani predictably ignored this, demanding to know why contingency funds couldn't cover partial payments (e.g., two-thirds of the shortfall). She knows why, so this was all for show. She indicated she planned to issue a ruling yesterday (October 30) on the TRO request, but didn't.
  • As of October 31, no decision has been publicly reported. If granted, the TRO could compel the USDA to release funds imminently, potentially averting full suspension and give the Democrats a propaganda tool they will use to portray themselves as the saviors of the poor, even though they forced the shutdown themselves. In my view, this was part of the plan from the outset. This wasn’t just venue selection; it’s forum engineering. Democrats picked the court, shaped the narrative, forced USDA’s hand. The Democrats didn’t stumble into this. They built the off-ramp and made sure it led straight through a friendly courthouse, past a sympathetic judge, and into their campaign ads, which I don't doubt have already been scripted, shot, and distributed to the media for immediate release once their pet judge rules in their favor.
  • If Talwani grants the TRO, SNAP flows Friday, Congress is sidelined, and the political blame game flips. A decision could come within 24–48 hours.
  • A denial (unlikely, IMO) would probably lead to further frantic appeals and further delays, leaving states to rely on limited emergency reserves (e.g., Virginia and Hawaii have already tapped theirs, but sustainability is uncertain). The USDA has already stated states can't be reimbursed if they front costs while the Schumer shutdown drags on.
Click to expand...
 
And yesterday afternoon:

Diogenes said:
Here's where we are right now.

SNAP funding will not possibly be restored until Congress reconvenes on November 4, unless their captive Obamunist judge orders SNAP funding be restored immediately.

The midterms are imminent and they are hoping that by blaming Republicans for the losses, they can take control of Congress next January and either hamstring President Trump or impeach him.

SNAP's November issuance is officially paused starting the 1st, per USDA. The $6 billion contingency reserve is off-limits for regular benefits, and that's the flashpoint for the lawsuit from 25+ Democrat-led states and D.C., filed Tuesday in Massachusetts federal court.

The venue for the suit was carefully chosen. This is classic venue-shopping, and this one's got all the hallmarks.

Filing in Boston's U.S. District Court (District of Massachusetts) wasn't random; it's a masterclass in picking a friendly forum where the plaintiffs, led by AG Andrea Joy Campbell, hold home-field advantage.

With blue Massachusetts ground zero for the suit (hosting the rally, the pressers, and a governor who's been vocal about the "inhumane" fallout), it's no surprise they anchored it there under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e) for suits against federal agencies.

The hook? Venue's proper in any district where a plaintiff resides, and with the Mass. AG as lead, that box is checked, while dodging circuits like the D.C. or Fifth, which might lean more skeptical of aggressive APA (https://guides.library.cornell.edu/citing_us_gov_docs/lawsStatutes) challenges.

The assignment to Judge Indira Talwani? That's the cherry on top. An Obama appointee (confirmed in 2014), she's got a track record on administrative law that's Democrat-plaintiff-friendly.

In the District of Massachusetts, cases are randomly assigned, but the pool is heavily comprised of Democrat appointees. The odds of drawing a judge sympathetic to mandatory spending arguments? Much higher than in, say, the Northern District of Texas.
  • Holding agencies to strict APA compliance
  • Rejecting arbitrary delays in benefit programs
  • Granting preliminary injunctions in emergency entitlement cases
Democrats are pushing hard for an emergency injunction by week's end, arguing the funds must flow under the Food and Nutrition Act—echoing precedents you likely navigated in past cycles. A favorable ruling from Judge Talwani could override the Congressional reconvene deadline and keep those EBT cards loaded, thereby avoiding any stigma they'd otherwise face for "starving the hungry".

The blue team is gunning for an emergency TRO by Friday (November 1), citing the Food and Nutrition Act's plain text on contingency funds for "program operations" during lapses, citing precedents like the 2019 shutdown where courts forced WIC continuity.

The complaint cites 2018–2019 shutdown cases where courts (including in D. Mass.) ordered USDA to tap contingency funds for SNAP and WIC. Talwani herself has ruled against federal agencies for procedural overreach, giving plaintiffs a credible path to a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) by November 1.

Boston is a Democrat-dominated media hub. A ruling forcing USDA to release the $6 billion contingency reserve would dominate national headlines, framing the administration as defying law, while a loss would be buried by the Democrat's willing media shills.

The government will likely move to transfer to D.C. (arguing it’s the “real” seat of agency action), but courts rarely grant such motions when plaintiffs have a statutory hook and irreparable harm is imminent (42 million people losing food benefits qualifies).
 
Diogenes said:
This isn’t just venue selection; it’s forum engineering. Democrats picked the court, shaped the narrative, forced USDA’s hand. If Talwani grants the TRO, SNAP flows Friday, Congress is sidelined, and the political blame game flips. A decision could come within 24–48 hours.

I’d put odds of emergency relief at 60–70% given the venue, the judge, and the stakes.

Classic venue-shopping executed with textbook precision indicates a pre-planned strategy that lends credence to my earlier assessment, doesn't it?

The venue-shopping here isn’t just smart lawyering; it’s evidence of pre-planning at a high level, and that directly supports my consistent assessment that Democrats are orchestrating the shutdown’s duration for political gain.
  • The complaint was filed October 28, just 48 hours before November SNAP benefits were set to pause.
  • It includes 25 states + D.C., coordinated press events, and a fully drafted TRO motion with declarations from food bank directors and low-income families.
  • That level of coordination, legal, political, and logistical. takes weeks, not days.
  • Conclusion: The lawsuit was in the works long before the USDA formally announced the pause. They were ready.
  • The decision to file in Massachusetts (not D.C., not California, not New York) required:
    • Pre-identification of Judge Talwani’s docket and APA track record
    • Buy-in from Mass. AG Campbell as lead plaintiff
    • Agreement among 26 jurisdictions to cede control to a single blue-state court
  • This isn’t reactive. This is war-gamed months ago, likely during Farm Bill reauthorization talks or early shutdown contingency planning.
  • The TRO seeks relief by November 1—the exact day benefits stop.
  • The hearing is today (Oct 30, just enough time for a ruling before the weekend.
  • If granted, $6 billion flows, Congress is irrelevant until November 4, and the narrative becomes: “Trump tried to starve kids! Dems saved them in court.”
That’s not crisis response. That’s political jujitsu.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top