Jamie Fox
@whatlawfoxsays.bsky.social
Law professor. A skeptic, not a cynic. https://www.stetson.edu/law/faculty/home/james-fox.php
I also hope they argue a violation of the “equal state sovereignty” principle, which has no textual basis but was invented by John Roberts to overturn part of the Voting Right Act. If it gets used for that disaster, at the very least it should do some work here.
November 11, 2025 at 12:16 AM
I also hope they argue a violation of the “equal state sovereignty” principle, which has no textual basis but was invented by John Roberts to overturn part of the Voting Right Act. If it gets used for that disaster, at the very least it should do some work here.
Yes, that’s a problem. Admin would argue that anyone who is active in the program, however purchase is made, is a user. And purpose of rule - to stop discrim against/for SNAP would support that perhaps. But it says user, not participant, to me focusing in the point of sale use.
November 9, 2025 at 6:44 PM
Yes, that’s a problem. Admin would argue that anyone who is active in the program, however purchase is made, is a user. And purpose of rule - to stop discrim against/for SNAP would support that perhaps. But it says user, not participant, to me focusing in the point of sale use.
I address a bit at end of thread. If someone is using ebt as part of the purchase, I think the rule applies even if their allotment limit is reached. But someone who simply shows they are on SNAP but doesn’t “use” the card may (?) not be covered. I do not think there is a specific def of “user”(?)
November 9, 2025 at 6:41 PM
I address a bit at end of thread. If someone is using ebt as part of the purchase, I think the rule applies even if their allotment limit is reached. But someone who simply shows they are on SNAP but doesn’t “use” the card may (?) not be covered. I do not think there is a specific def of “user”(?)
Plainly the admin is using a provision designed to *help* recipients to instead harm them. The problem is the reg's language may support that result. Here is the regulation. Note the final sentence: "No retail food store may single out coupon users for special treatment in any way." 🧵1/
November 9, 2025 at 6:30 PM
Reposted by Jamie Fox
/2 1. Real human beings will suffer from even a brief stay. 2. The government's position is transparently dishonest and in bad faith. 3. The Supreme Court has lost any benefit of the doubt. They have lost the mandate of the heaven that is the rule of law.
November 8, 2025 at 2:43 AM
/2 1. Real human beings will suffer from even a brief stay. 2. The government's position is transparently dishonest and in bad faith. 3. The Supreme Court has lost any benefit of the doubt. They have lost the mandate of the heaven that is the rule of law.
The mandate of birth gender on passport of someone who presents differently is a hostile act, as Jackson's dissent makes clear. Everyone knows the reason for Trump's EO was hostility to trans people. It's as clear as "hippie" in Moreno. Which is why the Court erases Moreno from its new law. end/
November 7, 2025 at 2:01 AM
The mandate of birth gender on passport of someone who presents differently is a hostile act, as Jackson's dissent makes clear. Everyone knows the reason for Trump's EO was hostility to trans people. It's as clear as "hippie" in Moreno. Which is why the Court erases Moreno from its new law. end/
It was Scalia's raging, homophobic dissent that clipped the Moreno quote. Today's Court basically does to Moreno what Scalia wanted to do to it in Romer. 11/
November 7, 2025 at 2:01 AM
It was Scalia's raging, homophobic dissent that clipped the Moreno quote. Today's Court basically does to Moreno what Scalia wanted to do to it in Romer. 11/
Compare how the Court in Romer (overturning state constitution amendment barring local anti-discrim ordinances from protecting LGB people) used Moreno - with the *full quote*. 10/
![A second and related point is that laws of the kind now before us raise the inevitable inference that the disadvantage imposed is born of animosity toward the class of persons affected. "[I]f the constitutional conception of 'equal protection of the laws' means anything, it must at the very least mean that a bare ... desire to harm a politically unpopular group cannot constitute a legitimate governmental interest." Department of Agriculture v. Moreno](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:7twvyhcy7wu6qrob7dp2v4ms/bafkreie6dv6hxb3x2zwbgdybljoc225j2ko6lxwfm6y3icahkxsrko2nm4@jpeg)
November 7, 2025 at 2:01 AM
Compare how the Court in Romer (overturning state constitution amendment barring local anti-discrim ordinances from protecting LGB people) used Moreno - with the *full quote*. 10/