rulings

President Trump’s administration said Monday that it will partially fund SNAP after a pair of judges’ rulings required it to keep the food aid program running.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture had planned to freeze payments to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program starting Nov. 1 because it said it could no longer keep funding it due to the shutdown. The program serves about 1 in 8 Americans and is a major piece of the nation’s social safety net. It costs about $8 billion per month nationally.

It’s not clear how much beneficiaries will receive, nor how quickly beneficiaries will see value show up on the debit cards they use to buy groceries. The process of loading the SNAP cards, which involves steps by state and federal government agencies and vendors, can take up to two weeks in some states. The average monthly benefit is usually about $190 per person.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture, which oversees the nation’s largest food program, said last month that benefits for November wouldn’t be paid out due to the federal government shutdown. That set off a scramble by food banks, state governments and the nearly 42 million Americans who receive the aid to find ways to ensure access to groceries.

Most states have boosted aid to food banks, and some are setting up systems to reload benefit cards with state taxpayer dollars.

It also spurred lawsuits.

Federal judges in Massachusetts and Rhode Island ruled separately but similarly Friday, telling the government that it was required to use one fund with about $5 billion to pay for the program, at least in part. The benefits and administration cost over $8 billion per month.

The judges gave the government the option to use additional money to fully fund the program and a deadline of Monday to decide.

Judge John J. McConnell Jr., in Providence, Rhode Island, said if the government chose full funding, it would need to make payments Monday. With a partial version, which would require recalculating benefits, the payment deadline is Wednesday.

Trump said on social media Friday that he does “NOT want Americans to go hungry just because the Radical Democrats refuse to do the right thing and REOPEN THE GOVERNMENT.” He said he was telling government lawyers to prepare SNAP payments as soon as possible.

Benefits will be delayed in November because many beneficiaries have their cards recharged early in the month and the process of loading cards can take weeks in many states.

Democratic state attorneys general or governors from 25 states, as well as the District of Columbia, challenged the plan to pause the program, contending that the administration has a legal obligation to keep it running in their jurisdictions. Cities and nonprofits also filed a lawsuit.

The USDA has a $5 billion contingency fund for the program, but the Trump administration reversed an earlier plan to use that money to keep SNAP running. Democratic officials argue that the administration could also use a separate fund of about $23 billion.

U.S. District Judge John J. McConnell in Providence, Rhode Island, said SNAP must be funded using at least contingency funds, and he asked for an update on progress by Monday.

In an additional order Saturday, McConnell said if the government makes full payments, it must do so by the end of the day Monday. If it chooses partial ones — which involve recalculating how much recipients get — those would need to be issued by Wednesday.

That does not mean people would necessarily see the payments that quickly, because the process of loading cards can take up to two weeks in some circumstances.

McConnell also ruled that all previous work requirement waivers must continue to be honored. During the shutdown, the USDA has terminated existing waivers that exempted work requirements for older adults, veterans and others.

In Boston, U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani ruled the suspension was unlawful and said USDA has to pay for SNAP. Talwani ordered the federal government to advise by Monday whether they will use emergency reserve funds to provide reduced SNAP benefits for November or fully fund the program using both contingency funds and additional available funds.

Advocates and beneficiaries say halting the food aid would force people to choose between buying groceries and paying other bills. The majority of states have announced more or expedited funding for food banks or novel ways to load at least some benefits onto the SNAP debit cards.

Rhode Island officials said Monday that under their program, SNAP beneficiaries who also receive benefits from another federal program, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, received payments Saturday equal to one-fourth of what they typically get from SNAP. Officials in Delaware are telling recipients that benefits there won’t be available until at least Nov. 7.

To qualify for SNAP in 2025, a household’s net income after certain expenses can’t exceed the federal poverty line. For a family of four, that’s about $32,000 per year. Last year, SNAP assisted nearly 42 million people, about two-thirds of whom were families with children.

Mulvihill writes for the Associated Press. AP reporter Kimberlee Kruesi in Providence, R.I., contributed to this report.

Reporting from Washington — President Trump’s effort Wednesday to influence the federal appeals judges who are considering whether to reinstate his restrictions on entry into the U.S. was notable for both the highly public setting — a televised speech — and the vitriol that Trump aimed at sitting judges still deciding the case.

Here’s how it compares with other recent presidents weighing in on pending court cases, ranging from cajoling to avoiding the topic altogether.

Lyndon Johnson, Civil Rights Act

In a speech at a dinner in Cleveland, Johnson lamented the struggles of implementing the 1964 Civil Rights Act while a challenge to the law — a case known as Heart of Atlanta Motel vs. United States — sat before the court. He did not comment on the case itself.

“It is now in the Supreme Court and we have had lots of difficulty with it, but we have tried to be patient and we have tried to be understanding.”

The court would go on to decide that the Constitution gave the government the power to force businesses to comply with the Civil Rights Act.

Jimmy Carter, affirmative action

Asked during a Q&A about Regents of the University of California vs. Bakke, which challenged affirmative action, Carter pointed to the separation of powers in avoiding comment.

“It’s in the hands of the Supreme Court and we have filed our position, that there’s nothing additionally that we would do until after the Supreme Court rules.”

Ronald Reagan, separation of powers

Bowsher vs. Synar, a case that challenged a key provision of the Gramm-Rudman budget-balancing act, produced a landmark decision on the separation of powers itself. Reagan opened a news conference by remarking on a recent lower-court ruling in the case but chose to steer the conversation to the underlying issue, the federal budget.

“We await a final Supreme Court decision, but nothing the court says should or will remove our obligation to bring overspending under control.”

George H.W. Bush, abortion

On the day that an abortion-related case, Webster vs. Reproductive Health Services, was argued before the Supreme Court, Bush was asked about it at a news conference but demurred. When a reporter pressed him, Bush, who had spoken out multiple times against abortion, hinted that he wanted to make his position known but stopped short of stating it plainly.

“I hate to not respond to your question,” he said. “But the court is probably going to make a decision very soon, and I would prefer to address myself to the question after the court has decided.”

Barack Obama, Affordable Care Act

Obama was the first president to make a persistent public push for his side of a pending court case; his landmark healthcare law hung in the balance.

But his tone was subtler than Trump.

First, during a news conference in 2012, Obama, who once taught constitutional law, urged justices to respect the separation of powers.

“I’m confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress,” he said.

Obama followed up a day later by suggesting the justices follow precedent. “I expect the Supreme Court actually to — to recognize that and to abide by well-established precedents out there,” he said.

His persistence marked a departure for the presidency, Josh Blackman, a constitutional law professor at South Texas College of Law, wrote in his book “Unraveled.”

“Very few presidents have spoken about pending Supreme Court cases after arguments were submitted. Even fewer discussed the merits of the cases,” Blackman wrote. “Only a handful could be seen as preemptively faulting the justices for ruling against the government.”

The Supreme Court eventually ruled in favor of the Obama administration in the case, National Federation of Independent Business vs. Sebelius, as it would later in King vs. Burwell.

Obama, money in politics

The Affordable Care Act was not Obama’s first venture into court commentary, though. He also used one of the president’s most high-profile venues to address a ruling: the State of the Union.

In addressing lawmakers in late January 2010, Obama criticized the Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission of a few days earlier that held that corporations had the same right to free speech as people. The court’s conservative majority concluded that the government thus could not stop corporations from spending on candidates.

“With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections,” Obama said. “I’d urge Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to correct some of these problems.”

Obama drew applause from Democrats, but an immediate rebuke from one justice who was present: Samuel Alito shook his head and mouthed “not true” as Obama spoke.

As a senator, Obama had voted against Alito’s confirmation in 2006.

[email protected]

Twitter: @amyfiscus

ALSO:

Trump takes aim at judges, saying ‘a bad high school student’ would see the law favors him

Not just ‘bad hombres’: Trump is targeting up to 8 million people for deportation

Homeland Security secretary says a border wall won’t be built all at once

UPDATES:

12:40 p.m., Feb. 9: This story was updated with Obama’s comments on the Citizens United ruling.

This story was originally published at 3:20 p.m. on Feb. 8.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court Monday again made it harder for Death Row inmates and other criminals to challenge their convictions in a federal court by claiming their constitutional rights were violated by state courts.

The pair of 6-3 rulings, including one in a California case, could speed the pace of executions around the nation. Many inmates have kept their legal cases–and themselves–alive by contesting their convictions in prolonged battles in federal courts.

In one decision, the justices reinstated a death sentence against a Sonoma County man who in 1975 shot and killed his wife. The second ruling involved a Virginia case.

Together, the rulings send a now-familiar message: Convicted criminals should not routinely get a second chance to contest their cases in a federal court.

About 95% of criminal cases nationwide are handled in the state courts. During the 1960s and ‘70s, however, the Supreme Court encouraged federal judges to closely review state cases to make sure that a defendant’s rights under the U.S. Constitution were protected. Inmates took advantage of this protection by filing a petition of habeas corpus to transfer their cases from a state to a federal court.

But under Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, the high court has stressed the opposite. Federal judges should not casually meddle in state court matters, the conservative majority has said.

The California case concerned whether an inmate should get a second chance to contend that he was unfairly induced to incriminate himself.

The defendant in the case, Owen Duane Nunnemaker, was sentenced to death for the 1975 slaying of his estranged wife, Alice. Nunnemaker went to her home in Sebastopol, Calif., shot her at close range and cut a phone cord to prevent her children from calling for help. She died of her wounds.

He later claimed he loved her, but was temporarily deranged. Prosecutors, however, sent a police psychiatrist to interview Nunnemaker, who found him calm and rational. During the trial, the psychiatrist gave damaging testimony against the defendant, who was convicted and sentenced to death.

In his appeal in state courts, Nunnemaker said his Miranda rights were violated because the psychiatrist never warned him his statements could be used against him. The California appellate courts ruled that it was too late for Nunnemaker to raise this Miranda issue. His lawyer should have objected during the trial, the judges said.

Without giving a reason, the California Supreme Court declined to hear his appeal.

But he fared better in the federal courts. Last year, the U.S. 9th Circuit of Court Appeals ruled that Nunnemaker was entitled to a hearing before a federal judge to see whether his constitutional rights had been violated.

The Supreme Court said the 9th Circuit erred in the case, Ylst vs. Nunnemaker, 90-68. The majority opinion, written by Justice Antonin Scalia, said the federal appeals court should have presumed that the California courts declined to hear Nunnemaker’s appeal for procedural reasons, and the federal courts have no power to second-guess those procedural rules.

In their dissent from the ruling, Justices Harry A. Blackmun, Thurgood Marshall and John Paul Stevens said, “The Court today continues its crusade to erect petty procedural barriers” to raising constitutional claims in the federal courts.

Monday’s other death penalty case ruling was written by Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, herself a former state judge. She rejected the claim of a Virginia Death Row inmate that his initial appeal of his conviction still should be considered by that state’s court system, even though his lawyer was three days late in filing it.

The case “concerns the respect the federal courts owe the states,” O’Connor said. Because the state rules forbid the consideration of a late appeal, the federal courts must do the same, she said in Coleman vs. Thompson, 89-7662.

Law enforcement spokesmen praised the rulings for upholding valid criminal convictions. The decisions mean that an old legal challenge “cannot be resuscitated by some sympathetic federal judge,” said Charles Hobson of the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation in Sacramento. But Rep. Don Edwards (D-San Jose), whose House subcommittee is considering the federal habeas corpus laws, lambasted the court. The decisions “force innocent prisoners to pay the ultimate price for the errors of their lawyers in a state court,” Edwards said.

June 27 (UPI) — The Supreme Court is slated to hand down its final rulings of its current term Friday, some of which could be landmark decisions.

It’s expected the Court will decide on whether President Donald Trump may enforce his executive order that would limit birthright citizenship. Trump had put out the order in January that alleged the 14th Amendment, which says every person born in the United States is a U.S. citizen., doesn’t actually apply to babies born to one or more parents who aren’t legally in the country.

The Court will also resolve whether or not the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, an Affordable Care Act feature that recommends preventive care services that insurers must cover at no cost to patients, infringes the Constitution’s appointments clause as its members are not nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate.

Another major decision likely to be made Friday would decide if parents in Montgomery County, Md., had their religious rights violated because the Board of Education there hasn’t provided an opt-out for their children to avoid reading material that includes gay and transgender characters.

A First Amendment lawsuit that concerns a Texas law that requires people to verify their age before viewing online pornography is also on the docket, as is the fate of a Federal Communications Commission program that covers the cost of telecommunications services in rural and low-income areas.

A lawsuit that accuses Louisiana of gerrymandering congressional districts, in violation of the Voting Rights Act is also expected to be settled Friday.

The Court usually breaks for the summer until the new term starts in October, but they will still have to act on any emergency cases that might arise.

The administration of United States President Donald Trump has filed an extraordinary lawsuit against the Maryland district court system and its federal judges, accusing them of having “used and abused” their powers to stymie deportations.

The complaint was lodged late on Tuesday. In its 22 pages, the administration accuses Maryland’s federal courts of “unlawful, anti-democratic” behaviour for placing limits on Trump’s deportation policies.

Fifteen district judges are named among the defendants, as is a clerk of court, one of the administrative officials in the court system.

The complaint advances an argument that Trump and his allies have long made publicly: that the president has a mandate from voters to carry out his campaign of mass deportation — and that the courts are standing in the way.

“Injunctions against the Executive Branch are particularly extraordinary because they interfere with that democratically accountable branch’s exercise of its constitutional powers,” the lawsuit reads.

It seeks an immediate injunction against a recent ruling from Chief Judge George Russell III, who was appointed by former President Barack Obama.

Russell had issued a standing order that would automatically take effect each time an immigrant files a petition for habeas corpus — in other words, a petition contesting their detention.

The chief judge’s order prevents the Trump administration from deporting the immigrant in question for a period of two business days after the petition is filed. That time frame, Russell added, can be extended at the discretion of the court.

The idea is to protect an immigrant’s right to due process — their right to a fair hearing in the legal system — so that they have the time to appeal their deportation if necessary.

But the Trump administration said that Russell’s order, and other orders from federal judges in Maryland, do little more than subvert the president’s power to exercise his authority over immigration policy.

“Every unlawful order entered by the district courts robs the Executive Branch of its most scarce resource: time to put its policies into effect,” the lawsuit argued.

Trump’s immigration policies have faced hundreds of legal challenges since the president took office for his second term in January.

Tuesday’s lawsuit admits as much, citing that fact as evidence of judicial bias against Trump’s immigration agenda.

“In the first 100 days of President Trump’s current term, district courts have entered more nationwide injunctions than in the 100 years from 1900 to 2000, requiring the Supreme Court to intervene again and again in recent weeks,” the lawsuit said.

The Supreme Court has upheld the right to due process, writing in recent cases like JGG v Trump that immigrants must be able to seek judicial review for their cases.

But critics have argued that other recent decisions have undermined that commitment. Earlier this week, for instance, the Supreme Court lifted a lower court’s ruling that barred the US government from deporting immigrants to third-party countries without prior notice.

Tuesday’s lawsuit against the Maryland federal court system appears poised to test whether the judicial branch can continue to serve as a check against the executive branch’s powers, at least as far as immigration is concerned.

The lawsuit attacks Maryland’s immigration-related court orders on several fronts. For example, it questions whether “immediate and irreparable injury” is likely in the deportation cases. It also asserts that the federal courts are impeding immigration courts — which fall under the authority of the executive branch — from greenlighting deportations.

But the complaint also emphasises the need for speed in executing the removals of immigrants from the US.

“Removals can take months of sensitive diplomacy to arrange and often do not completely come together until the last minute,” the Trump administration’s lawsuit said.

“A delay can undo all of those arrangements and require months of additional work before removal can be attempted again.”

Maryland is a reliably Democratic-leaning state, and the Trump administration has been dealt some significant setbacks in its federal courts.

That, in turn, has led the president and his allies to denounce the courts for “judicial overreach”, a theme reprised in Tuesday’s court filing.

One of the most prominent immigration cases unfolding in the US is that of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran immigrant and resident of Maryland who was deported despite a protection order allowing him to remain in the country. His lawyers have maintained he fled El Salvador to escape gang violence.

His deportation was challenged before District Judge Paula Xinis, one of the judges named in Tuesday’s complaint.

Xinis ruled in early April that the US must “facilitate and effectuate” Abrego Garcia’s return from the El Salvador prison where he was being held, and the Supreme Court upheld that decision — though it struck the word “effectuate” for being unclear.

The Maryland judge then ordered the Trump administration to provide updates about the steps it was taking to return Abrego Garcia to the US. She has since indicated the administration could be held in contempt of court for failing to do so.

Abrego Garcia was abruptly returned to the US on June 6, after more than two and a half months imprisoned in El Salvador. The Trump administration said it brought him back to face criminal charges for human trafficking in Tennessee. That case is currently ongoing, and Abrego Garcia has denied the charges against him.

That legal proceeding, and Xinis’s orders, were not explicitly named in Tuesday’s lawsuit. But the complaint offered a broad critique of orders like hers.

“Defendants’ lawless standing orders are nothing more than a particularly egregious example of judicial overreach interfering with Executive Branch prerogatives,” the lawsuit argued, “and thus undermining the democratic process.”