Judge orders administration to distribute SNAP contingency money amid shutdown

> SNAP is just a cash transfer.

Id argue that not having food because you didn't receive a needed cash transfer, esspecially when children are affected would definitely constitute "Irreparable harm."

am I suppossed to have an issue with someone having their groceries paid for by snap can now afford rent and maintenence costs for their home?

I was reading interviews with people who said they were likely going to have to skip either rent or their car payment to afford food next month. Both of those seem irreparable to me - late fees, credit score impact, possibility of losing housing or essential transportation to be able to work...

> Irreparable harm can NEVER be about money

You know people get evicted if they don’t pay rent right? Like if you don’t have enough money to pay rent because you had to feed yourself your landlord can have armed police forcibly remove you from their property.

I don’t know if you’ve ever seen those people that inexplicably live outdoors, but it may surprise you to learn that not being able to pay rent is a common cause for not having a place to live. It is shocking but true

> Not irreparable hard. Irreparable harm can NEVER be about money because you can always get the money later.

I can certainly imagine scenarios where failing to get poverty food aid cannot be adequately remedied by any amount of money later.

> If this causes irreparable harm, then by the same precedent, the government would never be allowed to reduce spending on any program that could reduce poor people's income

Uh, irreparable harm is just one of several elements of the test for whether a preliminary injunction is warranted while a case is being litigated. It is not, on its own, a bar to government action (otherwise, the death penalty would be illegal without having to make 8th Amendment arguments because it may be debatable whether it is cruel and unusual punishment, but that it is irreparable harm is unmistakable.)

So, no, that's not what this precedent (were it a precedential ruling of law rather than a fact finding by a trial court whose rulings would not be precedential in any case) would mean.

The question would be, is that as-applied or a generalized presumption? I can imagine scenarios as well, but if you look at say gaza, it doesn't break out of the statistical noise until they were starved for like 6 weeks.

If you look at many other injunctions for irreparable harm, like a lot of the gun rights cases, they would only apply it to the actual groups that sued like "members of second amendment foundation" as it can be too difficult to generalize to the entire populace. I suspect this might apply for snap; a judge may find some certain families could undergo irreparable harm but not perhaps rule the entire class of people receiving it would yet.

>there’s rampant abuse of this and other programs - and weirdly, lots of people admitting to this in social media.

oh yes, a few hundred people getting som eextra food constitutes an egregious waste of taxes that warrant our collective outrage

as oppossed to..

* a lavicious birthday/military parade

* a ballroom bigger than the white house being built while air traffic controllers arent' being paid

* billions of dollars being sent to subsidize argeninian beef

* billions sent to a theorcratic nationstate hell bent on committing genocide

> weirdly, lots of people admitting to this in social media.

How do you know those aren't bots?

Bro, you need to encounter someone barely surviving on SNAP out there. It will totally change your perspective.

>there’s rampant abuse of this and other programs - and weirdly, lots of people admitting to this in social media.

I think a good chunk of how we got here is people defining words like “rampant” to mean “I saw it on my phone”. This statement is literally “this is happening everywhere all the time in overwhelming amounts. I know this because it was on the apps on my phone”