Judge Orders Administration to Distribute Snap Contingency Money Amid Shutdown

Posted2 months agoActive2 months ago

jrflowers

46 points

33 comments

abcnews.go.comOtherstory

supportivepositive

Debate

40/100

SnapGovernment ShutdownFood Stamps

Key topics

Snap

Government Shutdown

Food Stamps

A judge has ordered the administration to distribute SNAP contingency funds during the government shutdown, sparking discussion on the importance of food assistance programs and the role of the judiciary in checking executive power.

Snapshot generated from the HN discussion

Discussion Activity

Active discussion

First comment

Peak period

0-3h

Avg / period

3.7

Comment distribution22 data points

Loading chart...

Based on 22 loaded comments

Key moments

01Story posted
Oct 31, 2025 at 5:19 PM EDT
2 months ago
Step 01
02First comment
Oct 31, 2025 at 6:43 PM EDT
1h after posting
Step 02
03Peak activity
11 comments in 0-3h
Hottest window of the conversation
Step 03
04Latest activity
Nov 2, 2025 at 11:22 AM EST
2 months ago
Step 04

Generating AI Summary...

Analyzing up to 500 comments to identify key contributors and discussion patterns

Discussion (33 comments)

Showing 22 comments of 33

hdlothia

2 months ago

4 replies

Biden and Obama appointees ruling against the admin, probably to be overturned by republican nominated judges. Have judges gotten more partisan recently or has it always been like this.

Hopefully some people at least get money for food in the mean time.

CiscoCodex

2 months ago

1 reply

Ugh, I might just be adding to the frustration here. But honestly I don’t understand why we’re not talking about how bad partisan politics is. It baffles my mind that we agreed a total population percentage of about 0.00015609% will choose our countries fate. I get that higher numbers don’t necessarily translate to efficiency, but California Republicans aren’t the same as Massachusetts Republicans and the same goes to Democrats.

yesco

2 months ago

1 reply

This is precisely why the federal government shouldn't have as much power as it currently does in my opinion. Every layer of indirection is reduction in representation. If not for the Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929 it wouldn't be as bad, but as things currently are, I see polarization as inevitable.

redserk

2 months ago

Do recognize that we already have many, many levers to pull to remove an administration that is not acting in the best interest of the people

The problem is:

1) We never actually want to pull the levers

2) While some early politicians expressed concern about party politics, for nearly 250 years there have been very few actual changes that recognize the harm of very cohesive party politics. If anything, changes were made to further entrench the system (the competitive game of admitting states in the 19th century, rules that only recognize 2 major political parties at the state and federal level, etc)

SilverElfin

2 months ago

2 replies

It has become like this slowly over time but it is still pretty recent. Within the last 20 years. It became especially bad starting in 2016. I feel like that election caused a lot of institutions to start becoming partisan and also to start abusing every power or loophole or whatever.

Stephen_0xFF

2 months ago

The last 20 years because of social media. The algorithmic echo chambers that people have created with their feeds has increased the divide.

lazyasciiart

2 months ago

Nope, long before that. It just took a long time for the results to become clear. Mitch McConnell has basically spent his entire political career working towards exactly where we are now: every branch of the government controlled by republicans.

Acrobatic_Road

2 months ago

Since SNAP is a national program you can file a lawsuit anywhere. The groups that sue the Trump admin know this. That's why they filed suit in Rhode Island which is part of the 1st circuit where you are almost guaranteed to get a liberal judge.

dragonwriter

2 months ago

> Biden and Obama appointees ruling against the admin, probably to be overturned by republican nominated judges.

These two judges were Biden- and Obama-appointed judges but Trump had been losing on executive overreach before Reagan-, Bush- (both) and even Trump-appointed district judges fairly regularly, too.

mhb

2 months ago

1 reply

It would be a good time for federalism advocates to make their voices heard. There's no reason to cede this power to the federal government.

dragonwriter

2 months ago

1 reply

What power are you talking about here?

mhb

2 months ago

1 reply

The power to withhold money paid by taxes intended to benefit state residents.

SilverElfin

2 months ago

2 replies

That could describe anything the federal government does. It doesn’t helpfully separate state versus federal.

mothballed

2 months ago

1 reply

The 10th amendment restrains what the federal government can do. By taxing and administering SNAP, they deprive the states and people the rights reserved to them by the constitution. The federal powers are pretty narrow, and the amount of taxes that can be sustained upon the populace finite. By usurping taxation and distribution of extra-constitutional federal powers, they deprive states the ability to administer it themselves.

Spivak

2 months ago

This was the argument when the ACA (specifically the medicare changes) went before The Supreme Court! End running around the constitution via the tax and spend power by taxing money out of states and then giving it back with strings. And it's one I happen to agree with. It's a crazy overreach by the federal government and it's being made so much worse today when the executive can ad hoc attach even more strings else withhold the money. So you at least have "my point was argued before the Supreme Court" as a source of legitimacy.

It's bad enough when Congress and federal agencies attach strings like this but when the executive, like literally the man not the branch, can effectively unilaterally write laws enforced by withholding unrelated funds we've reached a whole new level of throwing out the separation of powers.

mhb

2 months ago

Yes. And the fundamental problem is that the federal government has too much power. So everything it describes should be considered in this light.

Unsurprisingly, there is not often a consensus by the federal government to reduce its own power or for people whose tribe is in power to suggest that they devolve some of it back to the states.

egberts1

2 months ago

1 reply

The crux remains "is this the kind of emergency that Congress authorized Disaster SNAP (DSNAP) funds to be disbursed?"

It is in US Code 2027(a)(2):

- https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/7/2027

Let me expand ...

A shutdown due to insufficient vote is not considered a national disaster enough to trigger DSNAP disbursrment.

President, by Congressional law, are not authorized to disburse SNAP nor DSNAP during shutdown.

I know what you are thinking "but, But, ... BUT it's emergency SNAP", but it isn't: it's for a DISASTER SNAP.

So, my bet is a criminal judge making a administrative ruling will most likely be remanded by SCOTUS as to rewrite it (in which that renegade judge will be unable to do so), then get batted down by SCOTUS.

Emergency - https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/5122

DSNAP - https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-7/part-280/section-280.1

redserk

2 months ago

1 reply

> establish temporary emergency standards of eligibility for the duration of the emergency for households who are victims of a disaster which disrupts commercial channels of food distribution

I thought we are all victims of a disaster, including with commercial food distribution, hence the need for these emergency tariff actions? (Half tongue-in-cheek)

But on a more serious note, it’d be interesting to see what happens when emergency actions start interfering with interpretation of other emergency actions.

egberts1

2 months ago

1 reply

Natural disaster is one Federal definition.

I think we await the appelate to chime in as to whether Congressional shutdown qualifies as "natural disaster".

I think that is a reach, and by design.

TrnsltLife

2 months ago

1 reply

A disaster of human nature but not of Nature herself.

egberts1

2 months ago

No. Just natural disaster for DSNAP (Disaster SNAP, Stafford Act).

Hurricanes: 2017 (Harvey, Irma, Maria)

• Wildfires: 2021 (CA)

• Floods: 2008, 2022, 2025

• Tornadoes: 2025 (KY)

• Mudslides / Landslides: 2022, 2025

• Severe storms: 2025 (AR, WV, KY)

• Winter storms: 2023 (CA)

• Tropical storms: 2024 (NC, Tropical Storm Helene)

susiecambria

2 months ago

Not sure how it is in places other than Virginia, but added to the confusion created by the orders (yay, judges for ordering use of the designated funds!) is a question about when the state will decide to implement a temporary food program that is supposed to start Monday.

And, like everywhere else, many food pantry shelves are empty.

11 more comments available on Hacker News

View full discussion on Hacker News

ID: 45776816Type: storyLast synced: 11/20/2025, 7:45:36 PM

Want the full context?

Jump to the original sources

Read the primary article or dive into the live Hacker News thread when you're ready.

Open link View on HN