The Massachusetts official state website is blaming President Trump for snap benefits being halted
- Thread starter ziggy
- Start date
Diogenes
Nemo me impune lacessit
Democrats wrote the expiry date into the extended Obamacare subsidies, Brad. You're right that it's a spending issue. The GOP will not expand those subsidies and make the permanent.
But "leverage".
Diogenes
Nemo me impune lacessit
If you mean SNAP, the reserve fund is restricted to emergencies.
T. A. Gardner
Serial Thread Killer
I'm just pointing out that the funds the Democrats are demanding Trump use to cover SNAP benefits won't last two weeks at the current level of payouts per month being made.
Diogenes
Nemo me impune lacessit
T. A. Gardner
Serial Thread Killer
You're missing my point. The funds amount to nothing. The Democrats are blowing smoke out their asses seemingly saying these funds would cover October SNAP payments. They won't. It would be a near meaningless gesture to expend them recklessly that way. It's another sign the Democrats don't give a fuck about the money. They only care about buying votes.
Diogenes
Nemo me impune lacessit
"Wanted", and already got.
OBBA passed in July, Brad. On the fourth of that month, it was signed into law.
Shutting down the government to attempt to repeal an existing law is not going to do the trick.
So you say.
Diogenes
Nemo me impune lacessit
It doesn't matter what the funds amount to if they can't be used to bail out the Schumer shutdown.
If you have half a tank of gas in your truck but it's been impounded, you ain't going anywhere.
There is nothing at all stopping their state agency that disburses the SNAP bennies from being funded by the state, except the fact that local Democrats don't really give a shit about The Children.
$5-6 billion. Who knows.
The amount and time is not the issue so much as the Trump administration claims they can’t. That’s a fucking lie.
Jake Starkey
Verified User
Who questions this: The healthcare issue has been addressed... No money for undocumented people...It's up to the democrats to open the government..???
No one can show the Dems want money for illegals having health care, other than the bi-partisan law ERs serve everybody.
No one can show the Dems want money for illegals having health care, other than the bi-partisan law ERs serve everybody.
Guno צְבִי
We fight, We win, Am Yisrael Chai
100% true, Trump has the funds and is still refusing
Crepitus
Verified User
He would lose.
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:
It's unlikely to succeed or even be pursued
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
Diogenes
Nemo me impune lacessit
T. A. Gardner
Serial Thread Killer
Everybody that's looked at the figures. It'll last about 2 weeks. Then what?
The amount, time, and rules regarding the use of that funding ARE the issue. The Trump administration claims they can't because the money isn't for that use and doing so would be illegal under FAR rules.
November Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program
www.documentcloud.org
Two weeks is two weeks.Everybody that's looked at the figures. It'll last about 2 weeks. Then what?
The amount, time, and rules regarding the use of that funding ARE the issue. The Trump administration claims they can't because the money isn't for that use and doing so would be illegal under FAR rules.
November Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program
The money is earmarked for emergency purposes. Trump has sent in troops to his enemy cities after declaring such. A stroke of the pen.
He is lying and you’re buying it.
T. A. Gardner
Serial Thread Killer
The money is specifically for certain things. If the Dept of Ag were to use it to cover SNAP they'd be committing a potentially criminal act in using money allocated for one purpose for something it isn't supposed to be used for by law.
I've controlled budgets under the Federal Acquisition Regulations. You just can't move money allocated to one line item to another as you please. There are lots of rules and if you don't follow them, you could find yourself facing charges.