←back to thread

Judge orders administration to distribute SNAP contingency money amid shutdown

(abcnews.go.com)
46 points jrflowers | 1 comments | 31 Oct 25 21:19 UTC | HN request time: 0.204s | source
Show context
Acrobatic_Road[dead post] ◴[31 Oct 25 22:16 UTC] No.45777291[source]▶
[flagged]
cultofmetatron ◴[31 Oct 25 22:18 UTC] No.45777307[source]▶
> 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."

replies(2): >>45777405 #>>45778100 #
Acrobatic_Road[dead post] ◴[31 Oct 25 22:30 UTC] No.45777405[source]▶
[flagged]
1. dragonwriter ◴[31 Oct 25 23:40 UTC] No.45777916[source]▶
> 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.