The Massachusetts official state website is blaming President Trump for snap benefits being halted

T. A. Gardner said:
Public slander is suable. This is particularly true for public figures and celebrities that rely on their public perception and persona. Damaging those can be shown in court as damages.
Click to expand...

:palm:

Yes, President Trump could theoretically sue the State of Massachusetts (or more precisely, individual state officials in their official capacities) over statements on the official state website blaming him for the impending halt of SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) benefits.

However, such a lawsuit would face extremely high legal hurdles and is highly unlikely to succeed.

President Trump could pursue a civil suit in federal court naming state officials under doctrines like Ex parte Young (allowing suits against officials for ongoing violations of federal law). Viable claims might include:
  1. Defamation/Libel:
    • Basis: The statements accuse Trump of intentionally "choosing" to cause hunger for millions, potentially implying malice or incompetence. Libel applies to written false statements harming reputation.
    • Challenges:
      • Public Figure Status: As president, Trump is a quintessential public figure, requiring proof of "actual malice" (knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for truth) per New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964). Courts rarely find this for political speech.
      • Opinion vs. Fact: Phrases like "choosing to not issue" or "created this crisis" are rhetorical opinions on policy, protected as non-actionable under Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co. (1990). They reflect a good-faith dispute over executive discretion during a shutdown.
      • Public Interest: SNAP policy is a core matter of public concern, amplifying First Amendment protections.
      • Outcome Likelihood: Dismissal at summary judgment is common; similar suits by Trump (e.g., against media) have failed.
  2. First Amendment Retaliation:
    • Basis: Claim the statements were retaliatory against Trump's policies, chilling his rights (though this is a stretch, as it's the state speaking critically).
    • Challenges: Government speech on official websites is broadly protected (Johanns v. Livestock Marketing Ass'n, 2005). No clear retaliation injury to Trump personally.
  3. Federal Preemption or Mandamus:
    • Basis: Argue the statements misrepresent federal law (e.g., implying President Trump has unilateral power to override Congress) and seek an order to remove them.
    • Challenges: Courts defer to executive interpretations during shutdowns (Train v. City of New York, 1975). Mandamus requires a clear legal duty violated, which isn't evident here.
It's unlikely to succeed or even be pursued
  • Sovereign Immunity: Suing "the State" directly is barred by the Eleventh Amendment unless waived (unlikely). Suits target officials, but qualified immunity often shields them for discretionary acts.

  • Political Speech Protections: This is quintessential political discourse amid a shutdown affecting 42 million Americans nationwide.
    Precedent: Trump's past defamation suits (e.g., against CNN, 2023 dismissal) highlight the "actual malice" barrier. No analogous successful suits against states for policy critiques exist.

  • Practical Barriers: Discovery would expose internal administration memos, risking political damage. Massachusetts AG Andrea Campbell has already sued the USDA over related SNAP issues (e.g., data demands for deportations), showing the state's litigious stance.

    In summary, while President Trump has the standing to file, First Amendment safeguards and evidentiary burdens make victory improbable. This appears to be a case of severe Trump Derangement Syndrome spawning heated partisan rhetoric rather than actionable defamation.

If the Schumer shutdown resolves soon (which seems likely), the statements may become moot anyway.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Trump should slap a lawsuit on them for lying.
Click to expand...
There are contingency funds available for just this kinda situation.

To be clear, they are sitting in an account waiting. They don't need to be appropriated or shifted, just released.

tRump is choosing not to release them. Yes, choosing, as in he is making a conscious choice to let people go hungry.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top