Connect with us

The Dictatorship

Trump administration moves to pause full November SNAP payments

Published

on

Trump administration moves to pause full November SNAP payments

BOSTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Friday granted the Trump administration’s emergency appeal to temporarily block a court order to fully fund SNAP food aid payments amid the government shutdown, even though residents in some states already have received the funds.

A judge had given the Republican administration until Friday to make the payments through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. But the administration asked an appeals court to suspend any court orders requiring it to spend more money than is available in a contingency fund, and instead allow it to continue with planned partial SNAP payments for the month.

After a Boston appeals court declined to immediately intervene, Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson issued an order late Friday pausing the requirement to distribute full SNAP payments until the appeals court rules on whether to issue a more lasting pause. Jackson handles emergency matters from Massachusetts.

Her order will remain in place until 48 hours after the appeals court rules, giving the administration time to return to the Supreme Court if the appeals court refuses to step in.

The food program serves about 1 in 8 Americans, mostly with lower incomes.

Officials in more than a half-dozen states confirmed that some SNAP recipients already were issued full November payments on Friday. But Jackson’s order could prevent other states from initiating the payments.

People wait in line durning an emergency food distribution at The Jewish Federation of Greater Philadelphia's Mitzvah Food Program in Philadelphia, Friday, Nov. 7, 2025. (AP Photo/Matt Rourke)

People wait in line durning an emergency food distribution at The Jewish Federation of Greater Philadelphia’s Mitzvah Food Program in Philadelphia, Friday, Nov. 7, 2025. (AP Photo/Matt Rourke)

Which states issued SNAP payments

In Wisconsin, more than $104 million of monthly food benefits became available at midnight on electronic cards for about 337,000 households, a spokesperson for Democratic Gov. Tony Evers said. The state was able to access the federal money so quickly by submitting a request to its electronic benefit card vendor to process the SNAP payments within hours of a Thursday court order to provide full benefits.

Oregon Gov. Tina Kotek, a Democrat, said state employees “worked through the night” to issue full November benefits “to make sure every Oregon family relying on SNAP could buy groceries” by Friday.

Hawaii had the information for November’s monthly payments ready to go, so it could submit it quickly for processing after Thursday’s court order — and before a higher court could potentially pause it, Joseph Campos II, deputy director of Hawaii’s Department of Human Services, told The Associated Press.

“We moved with haste once we verified everything,” Campos said.

Trump’s administration told the Supreme Court that the fast-acting states were “trying to seize what they could of the agency’s finite set of remaining funds, before any appeal could even be filed, and to the detriment of other States’ allotments.”

“Once those billions are out the door, there is no ready mechanism for the government to recover those funds,” Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote in the court filing.

Officials in California, Kansas, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Washington state also said they moved quickly to issue full SNAP benefits Friday, while other states said they expected full benefits to arrive over the weekend or early next week. Still others said they were waiting for further federal guidance.

Volunteer Karen Robinson moves groceries durning an emergency food distribution at The Jewish Federation of Greater Philadelphia's Mitzvah Food Program in Philadelphia, Friday, Nov. 7, 2025. (AP Photo/Matt Rourke)

Volunteer Karen Robinson moves groceries durning an emergency food distribution at The Jewish Federation of Greater Philadelphia’s Mitzvah Food Program in Philadelphia, Friday, Nov. 7, 2025. (AP Photo/Matt Rourke)

Many SNAP recipients face uncertainty

The court wrangling prolonged weeks of uncertainty for Americans with lower incomes.

An individual can receive a monthly maximum food benefit of nearly $300 and a family of four up to nearly $1,000, although many receive less than that under a formula that takes into consideration their income.

For some SNAP participants, it remained unclear when they would receive their benefits.

Jasmen Youngbey of Newark, New Jersey, waited in line Friday at a food pantry in the state’s largest city. As a single mom attending college, Youngbey said she relies on SNAP to help feed her 7-month-old and 4-year-old sons. But she said her account balance was at $0.

“Not everybody has cash to pull out and say, ‘OK, I’m going to go and get this,’ especially with the cost of food right now,” she said.

Later Friday, Youngbey said, she received her monthly SNAP benefits.

SNAP EBT information sign is displayed at a gas station in Riverwoods, Ill., Saturday, Nov. 1, 2025. (AP Photo/Nam Y. Huh, file)

SNAP EBT information sign is displayed at a gas station in Riverwoods, Ill., Saturday, Nov. 1, 2025. (AP Photo/Nam Y. Huh, file)

The legal battle over SNAP takes another twist

Because of the federal government shutdown, the Trump administration originally had said SNAP benefits would not be available in November. However, two judges ruled last week that the administration could not skip November’s benefits entirely because of the shutdown. One of those judges was U.S. District Judge John J. McConnell Jr., who ordered the full payments Thursday.

In both casesthe judges ordered the government to use one emergency reserve fund containing more than $4.6 billion to pay for SNAP for November but gave it leeway to tap other money to make the full payments, which cost between $8.5 billion and $9 billion each month.

On Monday, the administration said it would not use additional moneysaying it was up to Congress to appropriate the funds for the program and that the other money was needed to shore up other child hunger programs.

Thursday’s federal court order rejected the Trump administration’s decision to cover only 65% of the maximum monthly benefit, a decision that could have left some recipients getting nothing for this month.

In its court filings Friday, Trump’s administration contended that the judge usurped both legislative and executive authority in ordering SNAP benefits to be fully funded.

“This unprecedented injunction makes a mockery of the separation of powers,” Sauer told the Supreme Court.

Volunteer Bruce Toben packs groceries durning an emergency food distribution at the at The Jewish Federation of Greater Philadelphia's Mitzvah Food Program in Philadelphia, Friday, Nov. 7, 2025. (AP Photo/Matt Rourke)

Volunteer Bruce Toben packs groceries durning an emergency food distribution at the at The Jewish Federation of Greater Philadelphia’s Mitzvah Food Program in Philadelphia, Friday, Nov. 7, 2025. (AP Photo/Matt Rourke)

States are taking different approaches to food aid

Some states said they stood ready to distribute SNAP money as quickly as possible.

Colorado and Massachusetts said SNAP participants could receive their full November payments as soon as Saturday. New York said access to full SNAP benefits should begin by Sunday. New Hampshire said full benefits should be available by this weekend. Arizona and Connecticut said full benefits should be accessible in the coming days.

Officials in North Carolina said they distributed partial SNAP payments Friday and full benefits could be available by this weekend. Officials in Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana and North Dakota also said they distributed partial November payments.

Amid the federal uncertainty, Delaware’s Democratic Gov. Matt Meyer said the state used its own funds Friday to provide the first of what could be a weekly relief payment to SNAP recipients.

___

Lieb reported from Jefferson City, Missouri; Bauer from Madison, Wisconsin; and Catalini from Newark, New Jersey. Associated Press writers Mark Sherman in Washington; Sara Cline in Baton Rouge, Louisiana; Jack Dura in Bismarck, North Dakota; Sejal Govindarao in Phoenix; Susan Haigh in Norwich, Connecticut; Heather Hollingsworth in Mission, Kansas; Anthony Izaguirre in New York; Jennifer Kelleher in Honolulu; Mingson Lau in Claymont, Delaware; John O’Connor, in Springfield, Illinois; Gary D. Robertson in Raleigh, North Carolina; Colleen Slevin in Denver; and Tassanee Vejpongsa in Philadelphia contributed to this report.

Read More

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

The Dictatorship

Bill Cassidy thinks he has a shot against two Trump-loving foes

Published

on

BATON ROUGE, La. — With his political future hanging in the balance and President Donald Trump looming large over Louisiana’s Republican Senate primary, Sen. Bill Cassidy spent the campaign’s final hours trying to hit a moving target.

During a campaign stop at a gun range on Friday, the incumbent senator — fighting for his political life against two Trump-aligned candidates — said his primary “is not me versus Donald Trump.”

“This is me fighting for the people of Louisiana,” he said.

When MS NOW asked if he regretted his vote to convict Trump following the president’s impeachment after the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol — a vote that set into motion the primary fight currently threatening his political career — Cassidy said he doesn’t sit around and think about what happened five years ago. “I’m focused on the future,” he said.

And when MS NOW pressed Cassidy on whether there’s room in the GOP for a Republican willing to cross Trump, he shot down the question.

“I’m gonna let you hold on that because I think you got a theme there,” Cassidy said, turning from reporters and walking toward the gun range. “So let me go shoot.”

In a race defined by Trump, closely watched by Trump, and playing out in a state that voted for  Trump three times, Cassidy is choosing his words carefully. But instead of avoiding the topic entirely, he’s embracing it in his own way.

The Louisiana Republican said he’s the only candidate in the race “who’s ever had Donald Trump sign a bill into law,” pointing to his sponsorship of a measure that reclassified fentanyl as a schedule 1 drug and a separate bill that aimed to combat the opioid crisis.

“My opponent, she has never had a single piece of legislation signed into law,” Cassidy said. “I’ve had dozens.”

The strategy is a risky gamble for the incumbent senator, who’s fending off two Trump-affiliated candidates in a state that voted for the president by more than 18 percentage points in the 2024, 2020 and 2016 presidential elections. The race has taken on national interest, with onlookers across the country watching to see if a Republican can cross Trump and survive.

With his congressional career on the line, Cassidy is confident in the wager.

“I plan on winning,” Cassidy said. “It may go to a runoff. If it goes to a runoff, I’ll win in the runoff.”

He went on to shoot an AR-15 and a 9mm pistol, highlighting the suppressors on the guns after he championed a bill that eliminated a tax on silencers. He admired his target sheet showing five shots hitting the bullseye and one in the innermost ring.

“I wanted them all like right there, but that’s not too bad — I’m pretty pleased with that,” he told reporters, pointing to the bullseye. “You know what I’m saying? I’m real pleased with that.”

Whether Cassidy will be just as pleased when results begin to roll in on Saturday is another question.

Primary polls show Cassidy trailing both his Trump-associated opponents — Rep. Julia Letlow and former Rep. John Fleming — spelling trouble for Cassidy’s chances at a third term in Congress. If none of the candidates reach a majority vote, the top two vote-getters will head to a runoff.

Letlow, a second-term congresswoman whom Trump hand-picked to challenge Cassidy, is a relative newcomer, after arriving on Capitol Hill in 2021 to succeed her late husband. But Letlow’s political fortunes have since skyrocketed since she secured Trump’s endorsement

“Highly Respected America First Congresswoman, Julia Letlow, of the wonderful State of Louisiana, is a Great Star, has been from the very beginning, and only gets better!” Trump wrote on Truth Social Friday.

But there’s also Fleming, the former congressman and Louisiana State Treasurer, who is a founding member of the conservative House Freedom Caucus and deputy chief of staff during Trump’s first administration. Despite not having the coveted endorsement, the MAGA loyalist has stressed his Trump credentials.

“I served in the Trump administration for four years. I was Trump’s deputy chief of staff for the last 10 months of his administration, his first one. And also, I was there Jan. 6,” Fleming said at a primary debate last week. “And you know what? There were a lot of resignations in that White House on Jan. 6. I stood there, stayed there, and did not leave my post in the White House. I was there to the very end.”

Trump has had his sights set on Cassidy since shortly after Jan. 6, when the Louisiana lawmaker was one of seven Senate Republicans who voted to convict Trump following his impeachment after the Capitol attack. Of that group, just three remain.

The tensions continued into last year, when Cassidy — a doctor by trade — raised doubts about Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and his vaccine skepticism after Trump nominated him to lead the Department of Health and Human Services.

If Cassidy — the chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee — had voted against Kennedy for a preliminary committee vote, he would’ve been blocked. In the end, Cassidy supported Kennedy, but noted to Kennedy that he was “struggling with your nomination.”

Last month, Trump unleashed on Cassidy as the president’s pick to be the next surgeon general, Casey Means, stalled amid GOP opposition from Cassidy and others. Trump called Cassidy “a very disloyal person” and urged Louisiana residents to vote him “OUT OF OFFICE in the upcoming Republican Primary.”

The recent opposition comes back to Cassidy’s core identity: A doctor. During his outing at the gun range on Friday, donning protective earmuffs and glasses, the physician-turned-politician spoke about the physics of the suppressors and how they protect people’s hearing.

Minutes after dodging a question about whether he regrets his vote to convict Trump, Cassidy said his experience as a doctor — gathering information, making decisions, and not looking back — guides everything he does.

“When you graduate from med school in 1983 and you’ve been a doctor ever since, that is the prism through which you use things, which is really good,” he told reporters. “As a doctor, you’re taught to serve people. You’re taught to listen to them, figure out what the issue is, digest it, observe, and then come up with an answer.”

“You make the answer, you live with it, you move on,” he continued. “You learn from a mistake, but you move on. And so, in one sense that’s insightful. You could probably look at like almost everything I do, and you can say there’s a doctor in him.”

Mychael Schnell is a reporter for MS NOW.

Syedah Asghar

Syedah Asghar covers Congress for MS NOW.

Read More

Continue Reading

The Dictatorship

Supreme Court rejects Virginia’s gerrymandering appeal after state court loss

Published

on

Supreme Court rejects Virginia’s gerrymandering appeal after state court loss

In the Supreme Court’s latest action that helps Republicans ahead of the midterms, the justices rejected Virginia Democrats’ emergency bid to save the state’s redistricting effort that voters approved last month.

Friday’s order follows the GOP-appointed majority’s recent Voting Rights Act ruling in Louisiana v. Callaiswhich prompted Republican-led states to try to make their maps redder ahead of November’s elections. Earlier this week, the high court majority granted emergency relief to Alabama Republicans who cited Callais as justification to use a congressional map that was previously deemed discriminatory.

The justices didn’t explain their decision in their unsigned order Friday, as is typical for emergency appeals. None of the justices noted any dissent.

The rejection of Virginia’s appeal is another court win for Republicans in this election season because the state’s voters had approved a process for new congressional districts that were poised to deliver more seats to Democrats. At President Donald Trump’s urging, Texas set off a wave of mid-decade redistricting last year that led other states, including Virginia, to follow suit. In prior orders affecting congressional maps, the Supreme Court approved the Texas effort as well as a Democratic countermeasure in California while also helping New York Republicans hold onto a seat.

The GOP-appointed majority said in a 2019 ruling that federal courts can’t do anything about partisan gerrymandering. Combined with Callais, that set the stage for Republicans to erase districts across the South that have been led by Black representatives and supported by Black voters, under the legal guise of partisanship rather than race. The Callais ruling makes it even more difficult to prove that map-makers are motivated by improper racial considerations rather than the partisan ones that the high court majority has effectively approved.

The Virginia rejection was expected because, although the Supreme Court can hear appeals from state high courts, this case posed a challenge for Virginia officials. That’s because the state court ruling they challenged was based largely on Virginia jurists’ interpretation of their state’s constitution, and the Supreme Court gets involved when there are federal issues to resolve. The Virginia case didn’t squarely call into question the Voting Rights Act or other federal matters of the sort the justices have been ruling on in election cases.

Still, in their emergency appealVirginia Democrats maintained that their case presented federal issues warranting the justices’ attention. The NAACP supported that position in an amicus briefwriting that invalidating Virginians’ votes “constitutes a deprivation of constitutional due process that requires this Court’s immediate intervention.”

Opposing the application, state Republicans arguedamong other things, that the state high court’s ruling rested on “pure state-law grounds” and so “no federal issue is present” for the justices to take up.

The meaning of ‘election’

In the state court ruling that struck down the measure, Virginia’s justices split 4-3 in deciding that the process that put it on the ballot had violated Virginia’s Constitution.

The state’s amendment procedures are, per the state court majority, admittedly “laborious” and “slow-walk[ed]” to “guard against hasty changes.” With that in mind, the majority explained that the process gives voters two chances to weigh in on a proposed amendment, the first time indirectly and the second time directly. The first, indirect time is after legislators initially propose the amendment, when voters can choose to retain those representatives based on their position on the amendment. The second, direct time occurs if it gets on the ballot, as this one did when voters approved itin April.

To get an amendment on the ballot, it actually needs to be approved twice by the state legislature before it goes to the voters. In this case, the proposed amendment first passed the legislature on Oct. 31 and then in January before voters backed it at the ballot box last month.

The legal issue in the ruling centered on the first step in late October when the legislature voted after early voting began but before Election Day on Nov. 4. That timing turned out to be crucial because the state constitution says the second approval must happen “after the next general election.” So the case raised the question of whether the first vote technically happened prior to the November election.

The state court majority said it did not, reasoning that the phrase “general election” in this context included early voting. The majority rejected what it called the state’s “thesis” that early voters “unknowingly forfeited their constitutionally protected opportunity” to base their November election votes on whether their representatives supported the amendment.

The dissent said the majority’s reading was an unnatural one that “broadened the meaning of the word ‘election’” and was “in direct conflict with how both Virginia and federal law define an election.”

As for why the court didn’t rule until after voters approved the measure, the majority said that’s a “fair” question to ask but that Virginia officials have no right to complain because, the majority recalled, they insisted that the court couldn’t rule prior to the vote.

Jordan Rubin is the Deadline: Legal Blog writer. He was a prosecutor for the New York County District Attorney’s Office in Manhattan and is the author of “Bizarro,” a book about the secret war on synthetic drugs. Before he joined MS NOW, he was a legal reporter for Bloomberg Law.

Read More

Continue Reading

The Dictatorship

Netanyahu threatens lawsuit over New York Times column on Israeli rape allegations

Published

on

Netanyahu threatens lawsuit over New York Times column on Israeli rape allegations

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Thursday threatened to sue The New York Times over its publication of an opinion column detailing allegations of sexual abuse against Palestinians by Israeli forces and settlers.

The Times’ articlewritten by Nicholas Kristof and published Monday, was based on conversations the Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist said he had with 14 men and women who alleged they had been sexually assaulted in what Kristof described as “a pattern of widespread Israeli sexual violence against men, women and even children — by soldiers, settlers, interrogators in the Shin Bet internal security agency and, above all, prison guards.”

In one account, a Palestinian freelance journalist told Kristof that when he was detained in 2024, a group of guards threw him to the ground, pulled down his pants and underwear and that one guard raped him with a rubber baton. A Palestinian woman separately told Kristof she was repeatedly stripped naked, beaten and groped after she was arrested following the Oct. 7, 2023, attacks on Israel.

Kristof also cited a 49-page United Nations report alleging sexual violence has become one of Israel’s “standard operating procedures” and “a major element in the ill treatment of Palestinians” since the Hamas-led attacks that became the deadliest day in Israeli history.

Israeli leaders have denied the allegations. Netanyahu wrote in a social media post Thursday that he asked his legal advisers to consider “the harshest legal action” against Kristof and The New York Times.

“They defamed the soldiers of Israel and perpetuated a blood libel about rape, trying to create a false symmetry between the genocidal terrorists of Hamas and Israel’s valiant soldiers,” Netanyahu said.

The Israeli prime minister’s statement and his threat to sue the Times falls against the backdrop of the war against Iran that he is waging jointly with President Donald Trump, who has separately threatened to sue the same news organization over its Iran war coverage.

Israel’s foreign ministry called Kristof’s article “one of the most hideous and distorted lies ever published against the State of Israel in the modern press.”

The Times said in a statement posted on X that the allegations detailed in Kristof’s article “were extensively fact-checked, with accounts further cross-referenced with news reporting, independent research from human-rights groups, surveys and in one case, with U.N. testimony.”

Asked for comment, New York Times spokesperson Danielle Rhoades Ha said Netanyahu’s threat to file a lawsuit “is part of a well-worn political playbook that aims to undermine independent reporting and stifle journalism that does not fit a specific narrative.”

“Any such legal action would be without merit,” she said in a statement to MS NOW, adding, “Nick has covered sexual violence for decades, and is widely regarded as one of the world’s best on-the-ground journalists in documenting and bearing witness to sexual abuse experienced by women and men in war and conflict zones.”

The statement continued:

“The accounts of the men and women he interviewed were corroborated with witnesses, whenever possible, and with people the victims confided in, including family members and lawyers. Details were extensively fact-checked, with accounts further cross-referenced with news reporting, independent research from human-rights groups, surveys and in one case, with U.N. testimony. Independent experts were consulted on the assertions in the piece throughout reporting and fact-checking.”

This story has been updated to include additional comment from The New York Times.

Erum Salam is a breaking news reporter for MS NOW, with a focus on how global events and foreign policy shape U.S. politics. She previously was a breaking news reporter for The Guardian.

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending