Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

pat_k

(12,394 posts)

11. I think that it may be as far as she can go before a full hearing on the matter.

Reply to Escurumbele (Reply #9)

Fri Oct 31, 2025, 07:42 PM

Oct 31

I'm no a lawyer, but I think the motion for an injunction pending trial, where plaintiffs get the order if the judge finds a likelihood of success on the merits, that they will suffer irreparable harm without the injunction, that the balance of hardships favors them, and that the injunction is not adverse to the public interest.

I think that there are mandatory injunctions (order to do something) and prohibitory injunctions (order not to do something). Her's appears to be the former.

If USDA throws up their hands and pays, I guess it doesn't need to go further.

There has also been another ruling on the matter in a case brought by cities and community groups that appears to be more definitive.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-administration/federal-judge-orders-trump-administration-pay-snap-benefits-contingenc-rcna241187

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

11 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

BREAKING: Federal judge rules that the Trump administration likely illegally suspended SNAP benefits [View all] In It to Win It Oct 31 OP

I EXPECTED this. Now what will be fascinating is if Trump orders DOJ to appeal this under emergency appeal BECAUSE hlthe2b Oct 31 #1

What will be interesting is how this is handled in light of Trump v. CASA from earlier this year Amishman Oct 31 #6

To the 6 RW justices at the US SC...................... Lovie777 Oct 31 #2

Now what will they say? "This radical judge says we CAN fund snap, but we REFUSE Anyway"??? pat_k Oct 31 #3

Judge/s: "It's illegal". Trump admin: "Duh!" RedWhiteBlueIsRacist Oct 31 #4

Take that you evil felon Grim Chieftain Oct 31 #5

"It's a criminal enterprise." Malcolm Nance littlemissmartypants Oct 31 #7

So? Magoo48 Oct 31 #8

There we go again...LIKELY...Is it, "IT DID", opr "NOT"? Are they leaving room for saying "NO, THEY DID NOT"? Escurumbele Oct 31 #9

I think that it may be as far as she can go before a full hearing on the matter. pat_k Oct 31 #11

A second lawsuit by cities and community organizations: U.S District Judge John McConnell ordered USDA to pay recipients pat_k Oct 31 #10