Someone in another thread posted this link, which basically opines that because the conservative justices would very likely have overruled her denial of a stay and then offered an open-ended stay regardless of any other factors, Judge Jackson jumped in to limit the stay to 48 hours, forcing a quick decision. It’s a bit more complex than that, of course, but the writer thinks the wording of the stay itself is highly unusual.
Well worth the read, even for non-lawyers, and easy to understand.
Thanks for sharing this. I kind of figured there would be some legal or strategic reason Justice Jackson would move this way. Seems she was stuck between a rock and a hard place and acted to try and enact the least worst option.
No problem, I thought the same. She’s very consistent and I did not see her doing that unless there was an upside to it. Apparently, however, in the interim between my comment and yours the full court has decided and the SNAP funding is blocked anyway. Props to @[email protected] who first posted the link.
Edited to correct and add: My bad, it was another reference to Justice Jackson’s extended stay and the full court has NOT ruled yet. My apologies.
To bad Oklahoma decided to listen and will only follow what Trump decides not courts.
Many other states didn’t move as fast as California, and didn’t distribute SNAP funds before the beloved SCOTUS issued a freeze on SNAP payments pending the Trump administration appeal. https://www.koco.com/article/appeals-court-ruling-trump-snap/69292456
Judge Jackson, what are you doing? I thought you were all cool and that.
Someone in another thread posted this link, which basically opines that because the conservative justices would very likely have overruled her denial of a stay and then offered an open-ended stay regardless of any other factors, Judge Jackson jumped in to limit the stay to 48 hours, forcing a quick decision. It’s a bit more complex than that, of course, but the writer thinks the wording of the stay itself is highly unusual.
Well worth the read, even for non-lawyers, and easy to understand.
Thanks for sharing this. I kind of figured there would be some legal or strategic reason Justice Jackson would move this way. Seems she was stuck between a rock and a hard place and acted to try and enact the least worst option.
No problem, I thought the same. She’s very consistent and I did not see her doing that unless there was an upside to it.
Apparently, however, in the interim between my comment and yours the full court has decided and the SNAP funding is blocked anyway.Props to @[email protected] who first posted the link.Edited to correct and add: My bad, it was another reference to Justice Jackson’s extended stay and the full court has NOT ruled yet. My apologies.
Ugh this is what I was worried about like is money really hitting accounts across the board? I guess not, this is a mess.