Julie DiCaro
LightNews LightNews
banner
juliedicaro.bsky.social
Julie DiCaro
@juliedicaro.bsky.social
11K followers 5.5K following 9.4K posts
Independent Journalist. IU alum. Recovering lawyer. She/her

Author - Sidelined: Sports, Culture, and Being A Woman in America; Losing My Perspicacity (newsletter)

DM for speaking requests


https://losingmyperspicacity.beehiiv.com/
Posts Replies Media Videos
juliedicaro.bsky.social
"But given the dire emergency facing the affected Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs are constrained to bring this to the Court’s attention as soon as possible. Plaintiffs are available for a conference at the Court’s convenience."
Plaintiffs respectfully submit that the Court’s written order memorializing its TRO ruling expressly direct Defendants to immediately restore and extend funding lines of credit based on contingency fund levels even as rulings on full benefit funding remain stayed. And should it become necessary, Plaintiffs are also willing to file a formal motion to enforce the TRO if directed by the Court. But given the dire emergency facing the affected Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs are constrained to bring this to the Court’s attention as soon as possible. Plaintiffs are available for a conference at the Court’s convenience.
November 11, 2025 at 5:54 AM
juliedicaro.bsky.social
"At least for New Jersey, its SNAP/EBT
processing vendor has advised that ... the vendor will need to shut off benefit cards entirely because there are simply no funds remaining."
The consequences of USDA’s actions are dire. At least for New Jersey, its SNAP/EBT processing vendor has advised that, in the absence of authorization from FNS or other sources of funding or actions by the Plaintiffs to comply with the November 8 guidance—the same guidance this Court has enjoined—the vendor will need to shut off benefit cards entirely because there are simply no funds remaining. That would cause irreparable harm to the effected States and grievously damage the health and safety of millions of their residents, as detailed extensively in prior briefing. Moreover, as indicated in prior submissions, many Plaintiffs cannot feasibly cancel full-benefit issuance files and resubmit partial benefit files—and certainly not in a timeframe that would solve the new crisis the USDA has arbitrarily and unnecessarily created.
November 11, 2025 at 5:50 AM
juliedicaro.bsky.social
"DOJ’s response appears to confirm that, to access any funding for November, many States would need to comply with the November 8 USDA guidance that this Court already stayed".
Earlier this evening, Plaintiffs contacted the Department of Justice (DOJ) to notify them of these developments. See Ex. A. DOJ’s response appears to confirm that, to access any funding for November, many States would need to comply with the November 8 USDA guidance that this Court already stayed. Id. (“The issue here is that the relevant States with issues have submitted using the Maximum Allotment of 100% rather than using the 65% Maximum Allotment tables per the guidance and the system rejected the 100% since there are insufficient funds apportioned for that purpose. To get the letter of credit to cover the amount of issuance at the 65% Maximum Allotment level, the State should submit files consistent with that guidance.”). In other words, in
November 11, 2025 at 5:48 AM
juliedicaro.bsky.social
"Based on information currently available to these States, USDA is refusing to make credit available—even at the partial benefits levels funded solely by the contingency fund, not by Section 32 funds—to several States that submitted full benefit issuance files."
Based on information currently available to these States, USDA is refusing to make credit available—even at the partial benefits levels funded solely by the contingency fund, not by Section 32 funds—to several States that submitted full benefit issuance files. See Ex. A (Nov. 10, 2025 email correspondence from counsel). As a result, some Plaintiffs’ SNAP/EBT vendors are unable to draw down funds to reimburse retailers for purchases made by SNAP recipients, even when spending on EBT cards in those States has not yet reached the contingency fund amount allocated to them.
November 11, 2025 at 5:47 AM
juliedicaro.bsky.social
BREAKING: SNAP is still a mess tonight, with plaintiffs in the Boston SNAP case filing additional facts for Judge Talwani following today's ruling.

www.courtlistener.com/docket/71783...
Despite the Court’s Order, extended after this afternoon’s hearing, several Plaintiffs have now learned from their SNAP/EBT processing vendors that USDA’s Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) has refused to extend their state-specific lines of credit upon which their SNAP/EBT processing vendors draw to reimburse retailers for beneficiaries’ purchases. In some Plaintiff States, it appears that federal funding has been shut off completely as the result of FNS’s refusal to certify or acknowledge issuance files sent by certain Plaintiffs to their SNAP/EBT processing vendors when the issuance files contain full November benefits. Based on information currently
November 11, 2025 at 5:45 AM
juliedicaro.bsky.social
"The new email address (BSSA.Outreach@ice.gov) generates an auto-reply, but it lists the ICE Chicago Field office number (872-351-3990). That number disconnects after an attorney
navigates through the automated menu."
The new email address (BSSA.Outreach@ice.gov) generates an auto-reply, but it lists the ICE Chicago Field office number (872-351-3990). That number disconnects after an attorney navigates through the automated menu. The auto-reply does not contain the guard shack phone number. The Chicago.Outreach@ice.dhs.gov and CHI-ERO-Detained@ice.dhs.gov email addresses do not generate auto-replies. We have received one report from an attorney who appears to have emailed both the BSSA.Outreach@ice.gov mailbox and Chicago.Outreach@ice.gov mailboxes and subsequently received a phone call from a Broadview official in response. That attorney was able to have a phone call with her client. It is not clear to Plaintiffs which email inbox precipitated the response. Nor is it clear to Plaintiffs how frequently either of these mailboxes are monitored or whether attorneys consistently receive a prompt response and client call. Plaintiffs have no information about whether detainees are being provided with the means to make free, unmonitored, and private phone calls to attorneys, or where that is being facilitated within the Broadview facility
November 11, 2025 at 12:26 AM
juliedicaro.bsky.social
BREAKING: We have a new status report in the Broadview ICE facility case.

DOJ: We've set up phone line for detainees to call their lawyers.

Plaintiffs: Yeah, those don't work.

www.courtlistener.com/docket/71832...
Plaintiffs’ Position: Plaintiffs cannot verify whether Defendants are compliant with the provisions of the TRO concerning attorney-client communications. Plaintiffs continue to have concerns that attorneys are not able to arrange calls to their clients in a timely fashion. The new phone number that the government has set up (708-316-4200) still does not work. As described during the last court hearing, the phone line cuts off after an attorney navigates through the automated menu. On Saturday, November 8, 2025, around 2:45 p.m., Defendants’ counsel provided Plaintiffs’ counsel with the phone number to the Broadview guard shack, as mentioned above (708-316-4192). Plaintiffs are in touch with an attorney, Shelby Vcelka (who testified at the TRO hearing) who called the guard shack number on Sunday afternoon before 3:30pm in an effort to set up a call with her client. She was transferred to a supervisor who told her that someone would call her back within 48 hours. As of 8:30 am today (Monday), she had not heard back. Plaintiffs
November 11, 2025 at 12:24 AM
juliedicaro.bsky.social
Once again, I am begging the men of Bluesky to cease and desist.

We're here to fight fascists, not to find love.
A screenshot of Bluesky messages shows multiple men sliding into a woman's DMS and saying thinkgs like "Hello" and "You're the most beautiful woman I have ever seen."
November 11, 2025 at 12:03 AM
juliedicaro.bsky.social
So we've got the docket entry on Judge Talwani's order:

"The Court will keep in place the stay of the Order directing agencies to return issued funds. Written Order to issue."
Electronic Clerk's Notes for proceedings held before Judge Indira Talwani: Motion Hearing held on 11/10/2025 re 3 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order filed by Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Case called. Court heard argument from counsel. The Court will keep in place the stay of the Order directing agencies to return issued funds. Written Order to issue. (Court Reporter: Robert Paschal at rwp.reporter@gmail.com.) (Attorneys present: Michelle R. Pascucci, Tyler J. Becker) (GAM) (Entered: 11/10/2025)
November 10, 2025 at 10:55 PM
juliedicaro.bsky.social
Talwani says her order will incorporate the ruling she made this morning STAYING the USDA's memo telling states to undo what SNAP benefits they may have paid out.

www.courtlistener.com/docket/71783...
Judge Indira Talwani: ELECTRONIC ORDER: granting in part Plaintiffs' Further Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and Emergency Virtual Hearing Request [ 80 ]. Good cause shown, the USDA Memorandum issued on Saturday, November 8, 2025, directing that “[t]o the extent States sent full SNAP payment files for November 2025,” they “must immediately undo any steps taken to issue full SNAP benefits for November 2025” and shall “advise the appropriate FNS Regional Office representative of steps taken to correct any actions taken that do not comply with this memorandum[,]” see Attachment to Defendants’ Third Notice to Court 4 [ 79 -1], is STAYED pending further court order. The clerk shall reset the hearing scheduled for November 13, 2025, to a remote hearing today at 3:30 p.m.(SEC) (Entered: 11/10/2025)
November 10, 2025 at 9:39 PM
juliedicaro.bsky.social
We have two whole pages documenting Trump's social media posts, which are coming up over and over in litigation on various topics.
On April 12, 2018, Michiko Kakutani published a review of A Higher Loyalty in the New York Times, calling it “absorbing” and noting Mr. Comey’s description of the Presidentas “‘unethical, and untethered to truth and institutional values.’” The next day, the President exploded on Twitter: “James Comey is a proven LEAKER & LIAR. Virtually everyone in Washington thought he should be fired for the terrible job he did-until he was, in fact, fired. He leaked CLASSIFIED information, for which he should be prosecuted. He lied to Congress under OATH. He is a weak and” “untruthful slime ball who was, as time has proven, a terrible Director of the FBI. His handling of the Crooked Hillary Clinton case, and the events surrounding it, will go down as one of the worst ‘botch jobs’ of history. It was my great honor to fire James Comey!” The President then unleashed a torrent of vitriol against Mr. Comey, calling him a “thie[f],” a “lowlife[],” a “Slimeball,” “Slippery,” and “not smart.” • On the evening of April 15, 2018, ABC News released portions of an interview with Mr. Comey in which he compared President Trump to a New York mafia boss, calling him “unethical” and “morally unfit to be President.” Mr. Comey added that President Trump is “[a] person who sees moral equivalence in Charlottesville, who talks about and treats women like they’re pieces of meat, who lies constantly about matters big and small.”The next morning, President Trump tweeted that Mr. Comey had “committed many crimes,” including that he “lied in Congress to Senator G.” • On April 17, 2018, A Higher Loyalty was released, and Mr. Comey appeared on Good Morning America. Mr. Comey stated that President Trump “doesn’t know or doesn’t care what the rule of law looks like.” He also criticized President Trump’s pardon of Scooter Libby, calling it an “attack on the rule of law.” o
November 10, 2025 at 8:12 PM
juliedicaro.bsky.social
"Those events—and Mr. Comey’s speech related to
them—spurred the President to resume his attacks against Mr. Comey."
3. After the June 2017 Senate hearing, Mr. Comey briefly withdrew from public life and the President took a brief hiatus from attacking him. But in Spring 2018, Mr. Comey published A Higher Loyalty—a book that described Mr. Comey’s tenure as FBI Director and compared President Trump to a Mafia boss. Around the same time, Attorney General Jeff Sessions fired Deputy Director of the FBI Andrew McCabe. Those events—and Mr. Comey’s speech related to them—spurred the President to resume his attacks against Mr. Comey6 : • On March 17, 2018, the day after Mr. McCabe’s firing, the President tweeted that it was a “great day for Democracy” and added: “Sanctimonious James Comey was his boss and made McCabe look like a choirboy.” • The same day, Mr. Comey posted a tweet addressing the President’s comment: “Mr. President, the American people will hear my story very soon. And they can judge for themselves who is honorable and who is not.” • On March 18, 2018, A Higher Loyalty reached number one on Amazon’s best-seller list, a full month ahead of its April 17 publication date. o That morning, President Trump revived his line of attack from the previous summer, this time accusing Mr. Comey of lying to Senator Grassley at the May 2017 FBI oversight hearing: “Wow, watch Comey lie under oath to Senator G
November 10, 2025 at 8:09 PM
juliedicaro.bsky.social
"Trump’s tweet set off a chain reaction that ignited far more animosity in POTUS. On 5-15-17, Comey saw POTUS’s tweet and decided to inform the public about the President’s request that the FBI drop an investigation of the President’s then recently fired National Security Advisor, Michael Flynn"
So on May 12, 2017, the President began a campaign to intimidate Mr. Comey to deter him from speaking out, tweeting: “James Comey better hope that there are no ‘tapes’ of our conversations before he starts leaking to the press!” Appendix at 1. President Trump’s tweet set off a chain reaction that ignited far more animosity in the President. On May 15, 2017, Mr. Comey saw the President’s tweet and decided to inform the public about the President’s request that the FBI drop an investigation of the President’s thenrecently fired National Security Advisor, Michael Flynn. See Intel Hearing, supra n.4. Mr. Comey had memorialized that encounter and asked Professor Daniel Richman to tell the New York Times about the unclassified memo describing the meeting, which resulted in a front-page New York Times article on May 16, 2017.
November 10, 2025 at 8:07 PM
juliedicaro.bsky.social
"Not only does President Trump have the ultimate power to cause a prosecution, but the sequence of events that led to Mr. Comey’s prosecution leaves no doubt that he exercised that
power here"
Not only does President Trump have the ultimate power to cause a prosecution, but the sequence of events that led to Mr. Comey’s prosecution leaves no doubt that he exercised that power here. After forcing out the incumbent United States Attorney, Erik Siebert, because of his reticence to bring this and other cases against the President’s perceived political enemies, the President posted on social media a message to the Attorney General excoriating her for failing to prosecute those enemies—including Mr. Comey—and directing that “JUSTICE MUST BE SERVED NOW.” See id. at 10-11. In the same message, he praised Ms. Halligan’s legal ability
November 10, 2025 at 8:03 PM
juliedicaro.bsky.social
"Imputation of President Trump’s vindictive motive to Ms. Halligan is particularly warranted because the President has “exclusive authority over the investigative and prosecutorial
functions of the Justice Department and its officials.”
Imputation of President Trump’s vindictive motive to Ms. Halligan is particularly warranted because the President has “exclusive authority over the investigative and prosecutorial functions of the Justice Department and its officials.” Trump v. United States, 603 U.S. 593, 621 (2024). As the government itself describes, U.S. Attorneys are subordinate aides to the President, “help[ing the President] discharge” his “responsibility” to prosecute crimes. ECF No. 138 at 17. And President Trump’s authority is not merely formal or abstract: he has exercised an unprecedented and extraordinary degree of control over the DOJ, installing his personal allies to key positions and inserting himself into prosecutorial decisions that, in previous Administrations, would have been left to the DOJ’s independent judgment
November 10, 2025 at 8:03 PM
juliedicaro.bsky.social
"Contrary to the government’s arguments, objective facts establish causation: experienced prosecutors declined
prosecution in 2021; no career prosecutor signed the indictment in 2025..."
Second, the government denies that the President’s vindictive motive caused the indictment, instead maintaining that only the United States Attorney’s motive counts and that it is “pure speculation” that she did not act independently. ECF No. 138 at 20-23. But the record leaves no doubt that “but for” the President’s “animus,” this prosecution never would have been brought. United States v. Wilson, 262 F.3d 305, 314 (4th Cir. 2001). Contrary to the government’s arguments, objective facts establish causation: experienced prosecutors declined prosecution in 2021; no career prosecutor signed the indictment in 2025; abundant reporting (which the government has never denied) confirms that no career prosecutor was willing to bring the case; the President nevertheless publicly demanded prosecution; and at the last minute, he installed a White House aide with no prosecutorial experience to deliver the desired result.
November 10, 2025 at 7:58 PM
juliedicaro.bsky.social
"The President’s calls to prosecute Mr. Comey stem from his
unconstitutional animus; they are not a magical cloak that renders his animus invisible."
The government’s defense of the indictment rests on two shaky pillars. First, it argues (ECF No. 138 at 23, 26, 40) that President Trump’s repeated calls to prosecute Mr. Comey establish a legitimate prosecutorial motive: to punish Mr. Comey for crimes. That contention has matters exactly backwards. The President’s calls to prosecute Mr. Comey stem from his unconstitutional animus; they are not a magical cloak that renders his animus invisible. The record reveals that President Trump’s calls to prosecute directly respond to Mr. Comey’s public critiques. They rest on no facts, investigation, or recommendations of agents or prosecutors; instead, they contradict those sources. And the attacks began shortly after Mr. Comey entered the public sphere in 2017 as a potential, then actual, high-profile critic—long before the 2020
November 10, 2025 at 7:56 PM
juliedicaro.bsky.social
NEW: James Comey has filed his reply to the gov't's response to his motion to dismiss for vindictive prosecution.

www.courtlistener.com/docket/71459...
The indictment in this case is unique in American history: it is the product of a yearslong campaign by the President of the United States to punish a citizen for protected speech. Mr. Comey has exercised his right to engage in public discourse critical of the President through social-media posts, press statements, legislative testimony, and the publication of his book. In response, the President has launched a storm of personal attacks against Mr. Comey, laced with invective and fueled by animosity. These attacks include scattershot demands to prosecute Mr. Comey for surmised offenses—based on a shifting set of conclusory accusations expressed in fact-free tweets. The President’s calls for prosecution do not rest on evidence, investigation, or recommendations. Rather, they express pure vengeful animus to punish a perceived political adversary. And the President managed to achieve his retaliatory goal only by installing a White House aide as U.S. Attorney to do what no career prosecutor was willing to do: indict Mr. Comey days before the statute of limitations expired. This prosecution violates the Due Process Clause, the First Amendment, and equal protection principles. The Court should dismiss with prejudice.
November 10, 2025 at 7:54 PM
juliedicaro.bsky.social
And here's the reason the petition was denied IN PART:
C. Second TRO That leaves the second TRO, issued on November 6. That order granted the same relief as the enforcement order, and plaintiffs requested the second TRO only in the alternative, if the district court denied the motion to enforce. Thus, we stay the second TRO so long as the enforcement order remains in full force and effect.
November 10, 2025 at 5:26 AM
juliedicaro.bsky.social
"(The gov't) has not made a strong showing that it is likely to
succeed on the merits. Nor does it refute the extensive record
evidence of the enormous injury to individuals around the country that a stay would cause."
Taking the four stay factors together, the government has failed to show it is entitled to the extraordinary relief of a stay. It has not made a strong showing that it is likely to succeed on the merits. Nor does it refute the extensive record evidence of the enormous injury to individuals around the country that a stay would cause. We do not take lightly the government's concern that money used to fund November SNAP payments will be unavailable for other important nutrition assistance programs.
November 10, 2025 at 5:25 AM
juliedicaro.bsky.social
"(T)ens of millions of Americans rely on
monthly SNAP benefits to pay for food. In support of their motion for a TRO, plaintiffs provided overwhelming evidence of the harms that even a short suspension of benefits would cause, including numerous declarations from SNAP beneficiaries"
The harm from a stay would be immense. The government, understandably, makes no attempt to argue otherwise. As we have already noted, tens of millions of Americans rely on monthly SNAP benefits to pay for food. In support of their motion for a TRO, the plaintiffs provided overwhelming evidence of the harms that even a short suspension of benefits would cause, including numerous declarations from SNAP beneficiaries and those who serve them. Those declarations describe a pregnant mother in Georgia forced to skip meals to feed her son; a working grandfather in Massachusetts who would eat twice instead of three times a day to feed his family; a mother in North Carolina who worries about how feeding her three children less will affect their health; and a nonprofit leader in Rhode Island whose clients will be forced to choose whether to "heat or eat" as the holidays approach and winter bears down on New England.
November 10, 2025 at 5:22 AM
juliedicaro.bsky.social
"In the single paragraph it devotes in its stay motion to addressing the enforcement order, the government does not make a strong showing of likely success in either respect. "
In any event, the district court has now found that the government failed to comply with that October 31 TRO, from which no stay was sought and no appeal was taken that would have prevented the order from taking effect during the period of alleged noncompliance. Thus, for present purposes, the question that the government's motion to stay the enforcement order presents is this: Has the government made a strong showing that it is likely to succeed in establishing either (a) that the district court erred in finding noncompliance with the October 31 TRO or (b) that, insofar as it did not err in that regard, it could not order full funding in consequence of that noncompliance? As we have explained, the answer is no. In the single paragraph it devotes in its stay motion to addressing the enforcement order, the government does not make a strong showing of likely success in either respect. And in the only other passage of the stay motion that could be read to address the finding of noncompliance, the government fails to grapple with the actual basis for that finding.
November 10, 2025 at 5:20 AM
juliedicaro.bsky.social
"In sum, the government fails to meaningfully challenge
the district court's determination that it failed to comply with
the October 31 TRO. "
In sum, the government fails to meaningfully challenge the district court's determination that it failed to comply with the October 31 TRO. Nor does the government advance any argument that the district court lacked authority to order the full funding of November SNAP benefits as a means of addressing any such noncompliance. The government has thus failed to make a "strong showing" that it is likely to succeed on the merits -- that is, to show that the district court abused its discretion in granting the motion to enforce.
November 10, 2025 at 5:19 AM
juliedicaro.bsky.social
Here, the district court fashioned a remedy to ensure that its October 31 TRO was followed, after considering the government's noncompliance and concluding that the obstacles it claimed existed were in fact "the foreseeable result of [the government's] own choices." That remedy -- requiring the government to "make full SNAP payments . . . by utilizing available Section 32 funds in combination with the contingency Case: 25-2089 Document: 00118364355 Page: 23 Date Filed: 11/09/2025 Entry ID: 6764060 - 24 - funds" -- directly relates to the court's October 31 TRO.
November 10, 2025 at 5:18 AM
juliedicaro.bsky.social
"In an unexplained reversal from its 2019 position, the gov't announced that it would make no Nov SNAP payments at all because it lacked the authority to use the contingency funds. Once this litigation began, the gov't then changed its position again."
Instead, in an unexplained reversal from its 2019 position, the government announced that it would make no November SNAP payments at all because it lacked the authority to use the contingency funds. Once this litigation began, the government then changed its position again -- it agreed that it could access the backup funding sources. But it was, in the government's telling, essentially too late at that point. Making partial payments that would actually reach individuals in any reasonable time period was too difficult, and the government decided that accessing the Section 32 fund to make full payments was imprudent. Yet, even after the October 31 TRO issued, and knowing all this, the government chose the partial funding of November SNAP benefits that the order permitted only if those partial benefits would be available expeditiously and by a certain date.
November 10, 2025 at 5:17 AM