Rick Hasen
LightNews LightNews
banner
rickhasen.bsky.social
Rick Hasen
@rickhasen.bsky.social
62K followers 610 following 3.6K posts
Professor, UCLA Law; Director, http://SafeguardingDemocracyProject.org; 2020 CNN, 2024 NBC/MSNBC Election Law Analyst; electionlawblog.org
Posts Replies Media Videos
Reposted by Rick Hasen
mcpli.bsky.social
As for who will hear the case: The case was assigned to U.S. district judge Josephine Staton (an Obama appointee). We're still waiting for the appointment of the other two members of the panel.
November 8, 2025 at 3:04 PM
rickhasen.bsky.social
bsky.app/profile/rick...
rickhasen.bsky.social Rick Hasen @rickhasen.bsky.social · 3d
One of the key things the Supreme Court is supposed to do on an emergency motion is to balance the hardships to each sides.

Here it is not even close--people starving v. the government not tapping a reserve they are supposed to tap anyway in the event of an emergency
donmoyn.bsky.social Don Moynihan @donmoyn.bsky.social · 3d
Just going to be an incredible decision if SCOTUS says they needed to make an emergency intervention because of the risk that poor people might get food they are legally entitled to
November 8, 2025 at 12:38 AM
rickhasen.bsky.social
*each side
November 8, 2025 at 12:18 AM
Reposted by Rick Hasen
stevevladeck.bsky.social
Link to the filing: www.documentcloud.org/documents/26...
25A539
www.documentcloud.org
November 8, 2025 at 12:13 AM
Reposted by Rick Hasen
lawrencehurley.bsky.social
Is it possible that Trump DOJ is so mad at judges they just want to get a stay to prove a point and will make the payments anyway? It's all very weird.
November 8, 2025 at 12:07 AM
Reposted by Rick Hasen
chrisgeidner.bsky.social
BREAKING: First Circuit denies DOJ's request for an administrative stay of the SNAP benefits TRO out of Rhode Island.

DOJ's stay request remains pending, and the panel is working on a ruling on that.
In a November 6 order, the district court granted the motion to enforce its October 31 order, concluding that the government had failed to either fully fund SNAP for November or to resolve administrative and clerical burdens such that partial payments would be made. It therefore directed the government "to make full SNAP payments ... by utilizing available Section 32 funds in combination with the contingency funds." In the same November 6 order, the district court issued a second temporary restraining order concluding that the government's decision not to use Section 32 funds to issue full SNAP benefits in November was arbitrary and capricious and similarly directing the government to make full payments of SNAP benefits by November 7, including by using the Section 32 fund. The government filed a notice of appeal and has moved to stay pending appeal the district court's November 6 orders. The government requests a stay on the merits and an administrative stay. We note that in its stay briefing to us, the government has not disputed that it may under 7 U.S.C. § 2257 use the Section 32 fund to cover the provision of SNAP benefits for the month of November. Because the November 6 orders provide the same relief, the government would need to establish that it is entitled to a stay of both orders in order to receive the relief that it requests from being required to make full SNAP payments by utilizing available Section 32 funds in combination with the contingency funds. The request for an administrative stay is denied. The government's motion for a stay pending appeal remains pending, and we intend to issue a decision on that motion as quickly as possible.
November 7, 2025 at 11:19 PM