Chris Geidner
LightNews LightNews
banner
chrisgeidner.bsky.social
Chris Geidner
@chrisgeidner.bsky.social
300K followers 1.9K following 20K posts
Subscribe to www.lawdork.com for SCOTUS, Trump, LGBTQ, criminal justice, and other legal news. / Email: [email protected] / Signal: crg.32 / About me: Sober. Queer. Bipolar. Buckeye. / He/him.
Posts Replies Media Videos
chrisgeidner.bsky.social
Here is that filing — storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us... — which I covered on Sunday: www.lawdork.com/p/doj-says-f...
USDA is aware that certain States have submitted payment files for full November benefits. This was unauthorized. The States were not parties to the Rhode Island injunction, and in any event, the injunction itself was not self-executing, but required USDA to take action during the day of November 7, 2025. Dkt. 34 at 26-27. USDA's regulations further make clear that States must implement a reduction in benefits once one is ordered absent further directions from USDA. See 7 C.F.R. § 271.7(a)-(h).
November 10, 2025 at 9:19 PM
chrisgeidner.bsky.social
NEW: DOJ filed its supplemental brief in the SNAP benefits case stay application at SCOTUS, leading off with the Senate vote last night, not the legal issues or the First Circuit's stay denial (although it does get into those issues after that). www.documentcloud.org/documents/26...
In the Supreme Court of the United States ─────────── No. 25A539 BROOKE ROLLINS, SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE, ET AL., APPLICANTS v. RHODE ISLAND STATE COUNCIL OF CHURCHES, ET AL. ─────────── SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF FOR APPLICANTS ─────────── Last night, the Senate began the process for ending the shutdown and funding the government—including full funding for SNAP through the end of the fiscal year— though the outcome of that process remains, to be sure, uncertain. See Alex Miller, Senate Advances Plan to End Shutdown, But Final Votes and Hurdles Remain, Fox News (Nov. 10, 2025). That proposal, if adopted by both Houses of Congress and signed by the President, would end the shutdown and moot this application. But roughly one hour after that hard-fought compromise was passed, the court of appeals issued its decision and declined to stay the district court’s command that the govern- ment immediately repurpose billions of dollars from Child Nutrition Programs to pay for full November SNAP benefits. Literally at the eleventh hour, those orders inject the federal courts into the political branches’ closing efforts to end this shutdown. But the answer to this crisis is not for federal courts to reallocate resources without lawful authority. The only way to end this crisis—which the Executive is adamant to end—is for Congress to reopen the government.
November 10, 2025 at 8:43 PM
chrisgeidner.bsky.social
NEW: Shira Perlmutter, the head of the Copyright Office, filed her opposition today to DOJ's request for an order from SCOTUS that would allow the Trump administration's effort to fire her to take effect during litigation.

Here is the docket: www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docke...
No. 25A478 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States TODD BLANCHE, in his capacity as the person claiming to be acting Librarian of Congress, et al., Applicants, v. SHIRA PERLMUTTER, Register of Copyrights and Director of the U.S. Copyright Office, Respondent. ___________________ ON APPLICATION FOR A STAY OF THE INJUNCTION PENDING APPEAL ISSUED BY THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT ___________________ OPPOSITION TO APPLICATION FOR A STAY
November 10, 2025 at 8:20 PM
chrisgeidner.bsky.social
OK, where are we on the SNAP benefits cases?

Two things happened this morning:

* DOJ told SCOTUS they're still fighting to stop full November SNAP benefit payments, via their stay request at SCOTUS
* District court judge in Mass. stayed USDA's 11/8 memo ordering states to "undo" full payments
U.S. Department of Justice Office of the Solicitor General Washington, D.C. 20530 November 10, 2025 Honorable Scott S. Harris Clerk Supreme Court of the United States Washington, D.C. 20543 Re: Rollins, et al. v. Rhode Island State Council of Churches, et al., No. 25A539 Dear Mr. Harris: Pursuant to the Court's order from this morning, this letter confirms that the government still intends to pursue a stay in this matter and will file a supplemental brief by 4:00pm this afternoon. I also write to inform the Court about two developments relating to this application. First, last evening, the Senate voted to begin the process for ending the shutdown and funding the government-including full funding for SNAP through the end of the fiscal year. See Jordain Carney, Senate Advances Plan to End Historic Shutdown in Bipartisan Breakthrough, Politico (Nov. 9, 2025).' That proposal, if ultimately adopted by both Houses of Congress and signed by the President, would end the shutdown and moot this application. Second, this morning, a district court in a related case issued a temporary restraining order. That TRO purports to stay the USDA's November 8 memorandum that directed States that had processed full SNAP benefits for November without authorization to take immediate steps to undo those actions and revert to processing partial (65%) SNAP payments for November. See Order, Massachusetts, et al. v. USDA, et al., No. 1:25-cv-13165 (D. Mass., Nov. 10, 2025). Sincerely, D. John Sauer Solicitor General Judge Indira Talwani: ELECTRONIC ORDER: granting in part Plaintiffs' Further Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and Emergency Virtual Hearing Request [ 80 ]. Good cause shown, the USDA Memorandum issued on Saturday, November 8, 2025, directing that "ItJo the extent States sent full SNAP payment files for November 2025," they "must immediately undo any steps taken to issue full SNAP benefits for November 2025" and shall "advise the appropriate FNS Regional Office representative of steps taken to correct any actions taken that do not comply with this memorandum[,l" see Attachment to Defendants' Third Notice to Court 4 [ 79 4 is STAYED pending further court order. The clerk shall reset the hearing scheduled for November 13, 2025, to a remote hearing today at 3:30 p.m.(SEC) (Entered: 11/10/2025)
November 10, 2025 at 7:59 PM
chrisgeidner.bsky.social
DOJ appealed the preliminary injunction and class certification order in the Illinois press and protesters case on Sunday to the Seventh Circuit: storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION CHICAGO HEADLINE CLUB et al. Plaintiffs, v. KRISTI NOEM, Secretary of U.S. Department of Homeland Security, in her official capacity, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 25-cv-12173 Hon. Sara L. Ellis, United States District Judge NOTICE OF APPEAL Defendants hereby appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit this Court’s preliminary injunction order, see ECF Nos. 250 & 256, including this Court’s Opinion and Order granting class certification, see ECF Nos. 252 & 256, to the extent the Court’s grant of a class-wide preliminary injunction depends on that decision.
November 10, 2025 at 7:04 PM
chrisgeidner.bsky.social
The Supreme Court did grant review of one case today, Watson v. Republican National Committee, and it's a big one over state laws allowing the counting of ballots cast by Election Day but received after Election Day.

Here's the docket: www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docke...

And question presented:
QUESTION PRESENTED The federal election-day statutes-2 U.S.C. § 7, 2 U.S.C. § 1, and 3 U.S.C. § 1-set the Tuesday after the first Monday in November in certain years as the "election" day for federal offices. Like all other States, Mississippi requires that ballots for federal offices be cast-marked and submitted to election officials—by that day. And like most other States, Mississippi allows some of those timely cast ballots (mail-in absentee ballots, in Mississippi's case) to be counted if they are received by election officials a short time after election day (in Mississippi, within 5 business days after election day). Miss. Code Ann. § 23-15-637(1)(a). In the decision below, the Fifth Circuit held that the federal election-day statutes require that ballots be both cast by voters and received by election officials by election day and thus preempt Mississippi's law. The question presented is whether the federal election-day statutes preempt a state law that allows ballots that are cast by federal election day to be received by election officials after that day.
November 10, 2025 at 2:46 PM
chrisgeidner.bsky.social
BREAKING: The Supreme Court DENIES former county clerk Kim Davis's request for the justices to take up her longshot bid to overturn 2015's Obergefell v. Hodges marriage equality decision. No justice even writes about the request.
25-125 DAVIS, KIM V. ERMOLD, DAVID, ET AL. The motion of Foundation for Moral Law for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae out of time is denied. The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.
November 10, 2025 at 2:34 PM
chrisgeidner.bsky.social
In the SNAP benefits case, Justice Jackson orders quick follow-up briefing at SCOTUS — today and tomorrow morning — following the First Circuit’s Sunday night stay denial.
ORDER In light of the First Circuit's order partially denying the motion for a stay and given the exigencies involved in this matter, IT IS ORDERED that, by 11:00 a.m. (EST) on November 10, 2025, the applicants shall provide the Court with notice of their intention to continue to pursue a stay of the District Court's orders from this Court via the pending stay application. If the applicants do intend to seek a stay, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that (1) applicants shall submit any supplemental brief under Rule 15.8 in support of the stay application by 4:00 p.m. (EST) on November 10, 2025; and (2) respondents shall file a response to the application and any of the supplemental arguments by 8:00 a.m. (EST) on November 11, 2025. /s/ Ketanji Brown Jackson Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States
November 10, 2025 at 2:25 PM
chrisgeidner.bsky.social
NEW: Following the Trump administration’s weekend actions, the states suing over the SNAP benefits went back to court in Massachusetts on Sunday night, seeking a TRO to block the admin from acting on its penalty threats to states making full payments. storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
Case 1:25-cv-13165-IT Document 80 Filed 11/09/25 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS; et al., Plaintiffs, Case No. 1:25-cv-13165 EMERGENCY VIRTUAL HEARING REQUESTED UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE; et al., Defendants. PLAINTIFES' FURTHER MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER Plaintiffs come to the Court yet again—for the third time in thirteen days-to seek emergency relief from yet another unlawful and senseless act by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and other Defendants in their funding and oversight of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).' Plaintiffs also respectfully request an emergency virtual hearing on this motion on Monday, November 10, 2025. The irreparable harm caused by Defendants' threats of financial peril as Plaintiffs attempt to navigate an unprecedented situation, with multiple contradictory guidance documents issued within days of each other that impact the issuance of life-saving benefits to millions of Americans, requires immediate judicial redress. Yet again, Defendants have issued a final agency action that flouts the most basic of agency constraints under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Yet again, USDA has placed unendurable, indeed impossible, burdens on Plaintiffs in their administration of life-saving benefits under SNAP and threatens ruinous financial sanction on the Plaintiffs if they fail to make these unendurable, impossible burdens.
November 10, 2025 at 7:28 AM
chrisgeidner.bsky.social
Judge Rikelman, a Biden appointee, writes the opinion, and notes a questionable argument of DOJ and the slipshod actions of USDA this past week.

These were points noted at Law Dork on Friday — www.lawdork.com/p/trump-admi... — and Sunday: www.lawdork.com/p/doj-says-f...
To be sure, the government does argue that the district court lacked authority to issue the October 31 TRO to the extent that order requires the government to fully fund the November SNAP benefits. It contends that "Congress clearly contemplated that USDA would reduce allotments when faced with a shortfall in annual appropriations." To support this point, it emphasizes that the governing statute instructs that USDA "shall" make partial payments. Nevertheless, the government does not contest that it did not even begin to follow the regulatory process for making partial payments until the district court ordered it to do so. - 24 - Case: 25-2089 Document: 00118364355 Page: 25 Date Filed: 11/09/2025 Entry ID: 6764060 That is apparently why the government had to correct its own mathematical calculations mid-stream, by informing the states on November 4 that contingency funds could cover 65 percent of November payments, as opposed to 50 percent of such payments, as the government had indicated on the previous day. "Congress has failed to appropriate funds to pay for Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits for this fiscal year. The Executive Branch has 2 since exhausted the entirety of its SNAP contingency reserve, which amounted to over $5 billion," he wrote, not noting that even that was only done due to McConnell's order. Sauer continued: "But that will be only enough to cover partial payments for the month of November. Such a funding lapse is a crisis. But it is a crisis occasioned by congressional failure and one that can only be solved through congressional action." The past 10 days have featured significant confusion - and aggressive pushback by the Trump administration. After both courts hearing challenges to the administration's plan to cut benefits completely found that the move was likely illegal, the administration sought only to partially fund this month's payments. The Justice Department told federal courts that USDA would use the SNAP contingency fund but not any Section 32 USDA funds to make November payments. The Trump administration first said that amounted to 50% of payments, but then corrected it to say that it would be 65% of payments.
November 10, 2025 at 5:52 AM
chrisgeidner.bsky.social
BREAKING: The First Circuit denies DOJ’s stay request in the SNAP case, refusing to stay the Nov. 6 enforcement order.

Justice Jackson’s 48-hour clock started just before midnight Sunday, meaning the administrative stay she issued Friday ends at the end of the day Tuesday.
But the district court did not order the government to use the Section 32 fund until November 6. It did so after it concluded that the government had failed to comply with its October 31 TRO. As a remedy for that noncompliance, the court ordered the government to make the full payment of November SNAP benefits by November 7. Thus, even if we were to stay the second TRO, the government could not obtain the relief that it seeks unless it also meets its burden under the stay factors as to the enforcement order. For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the government has failed to meet the stay factors as to the enforcement order, and we deny a stay of that order. In any event, the district court has now found that the government failed to comply with that October 31 TRO, from which no stay was sought and no appeal was taken that would have prevented the order from taking effect during the period of alleged noncompliance. Thus, for present purposes, the question that the government's motion to stay the enforcement order presents is this: Has the government made a strong showing that it is likely to succeed in establishing either (a) that the district court erred in finding noncompliance with the October 31 TRO or (b) that, insofar as it did not err in that regard, it could not order full funding in consequence of that noncompliance? As we have explained, the answer is no. In the single paragraph it devotes in its stay motion to addressing the enforcement order, the government does not make a strong showing of likely success in either respect. And in the only other passage of the stay motion that could be read to address the finding of noncompliance, the government fails to grapple with the actual basis for that finding.
November 10, 2025 at 5:43 AM
chrisgeidner.bsky.social
Ed Martin posted this document — alleged to be a pardon from Trump dated Friday — on X tonight.

It purports to pardon “all U.S. citizens” for efforts relating to alternative elector slates and “efforts to expose voting fraud and vulnerabilities” in connection with the 2020 presidential election.
GRANTING PARDONS FOR CERTAIN OPENSES RELATED TO THE 2020 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA A PROCLAMATION This proclamation ends a grave national injustice perpetrated upon the American people following the 2020 Presidential Election and continues the process of national reconciliation. Acting pursuant to the grant of authority in Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution of the United States, I, DONALD J. TRUMP, do hereby grant a full, complete, and unconditional pardon to all United States citizens for conduct relating to the advice, creation, organization, execution, submission, support, voting, activities, participation in, or advocacy for or of any slate or proposed slate of Presidential electors, whether or not recognized by any State or State official, in connection with the 2020 Presidential Election, as well for any conduct relating to their efforts to expose voting fraud and vulnerabilities in the 2020 Presidential Blection. This includes, but is not limited to: • Mark Amick • Kathy Berden • Christina Bobb • Tyler Bowyer • Joseph Brannan • Carol Brunner • Mary Buestrin • Darryl Carlson • James "Ken" Carroll • Brad Carver • Robert Cheeley • Kenneth Chesebro • Hank Choate • Jeffrey Clark • Vikki Consiglio • Nancy Cottle • James DeGraffenreid • John Downey • John Eastman • Jenna Ellis • Boris Epshteyn • Amy Facchinello • Bill Feehan • Carolyn Fisher • Harrison Ployd • Clifford Frost • Kay Godwin • Edward Scott Grabins • Stanley Grot • Rudolph Giuliani • John Haggard • Scott Hall • Misty Hampton • David G. Hanna • Mark Kennessy • Mari-Ann Henry • Durward James Hindle III 3 • Burt Jones • Anthony T. Kern • Kathy Kiernen • Timothy King • Trevian Kutti • James Lamon • Cathleen Latham • Jesse Law • Stephen Lee • Michele Lundgren • Meshawn Maddock • Michael McDonald • Mark Meadows • Shawn Meehan • Robert Montgomery • Daryl Moody • Samuel I. Moorhead • Loraine Pellegrino • Sidney Powel1 • James Renner • Bileen Rice • Mayra Rodriguez • Mike Roman • Rose Rook • Kelly Ruh • Greg Safsten • David Shafer • Marian Sheridan • Ray Stallings Smith III 4 • Robert F. Spindell Jx. • Shawn Still • Ken Thompson • Pam Travis • James Troupis • Kent Vanderwood • Kelli Ward • Michael Ward • C.B. Yadav This pardon does not apply to the President of the United States, Donald J. Trump. The Attorney General, acting through the Pardon Attorney, shall administer and effectuate the issuance of certificates of pardon to eligible applicants. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this seventh day of November, in the year of our Lord two thousand twenty-five, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and fiftieth. Donald Trump
November 10, 2025 at 5:24 AM
chrisgeidner.bsky.social
Under Schumer's leadership, eight Democrats (Cortez Masto, Durbin, Fetterman, Hassan, Kaine, King, Rosen, & Shaheen) joined the Republicans in moving forward a bill to reopen the government without ACA subsidies—Dems' stated key aim—or any other real concessions from the status before the shutdown.
60-40 C-SPAN vote screen
November 10, 2025 at 3:58 AM
chrisgeidner.bsky.social
Cornyn in the SICKOS meme
November 10, 2025 at 3:36 AM
chrisgeidner.bsky.social
The quartet in question: Paul, Blumenthal, Klobuchar, and Warren.
November 10, 2025 at 1:59 AM
chrisgeidner.bsky.social
Here's the unbelievable "undo" letter USDA sent: www.fns.usda.gov/snap/updated...
SUBJECT: Updated Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) November Benefit Issuance This memorandum is a follow up to the guidance shared on October 10, October 24, November 4, November 5, and November 7, 2025, regarding Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits for November 2025. The U.S. Supreme Court granted the U.S. Department of Agriculture an administrative stay of the orders issued by the District Court of Rhode Island in Rhode Island State Council of Churches, et al. v. Rollins, 25-cv-569. Pending any explicit direction to the contrary from Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), States must not transmit full benefit issuance files to EBT processors. Instead, States must continue to process and load the partial issuance files that reflect the 35 percent reduction of maximum allotments detailed in the November 5 guidance. To the extent States sent full SNAP payment files for November 2025, this was unauthorized. Accordingly, States must immediately undo any steps taken to issue full SNAP benefits for November 2025. Please advise the appropriate FNS Regional Office representative of steps taken to correct any actions taken that do not comply with this memorandum. Per 7 CFR 271.7(h), failure to comply with this memorandum may result in USDA taking various actions, including cancellation of the Federal share of State administrative costs and holding States liable for any overissuances that result from the noncompliance. We are committed to keeping you as up to date as possible and appreciate your continued partnership to serve program beneficiaries across the country. State agencies with questions should contact their FNS Regional Office representative.
November 9, 2025 at 8:40 PM
chrisgeidner.bsky.social
In what amounts to Mark Wolf’s resignation letter from the federal bench in Massachusetts forget more than 40 years—he was already a senior judge, so it creates no vacancy—he says he “intend[s] to advocate for the judges who cannot speak publicly for themselves.” www.theatlantic.com/ideas/2025/1...
Others who have held positions of authority, including former federal judges and ambassadors, have been opposing this government's efforts to undermine the principled, impartial administration of justice and distort the free and fair functioning of American democracy. They have urged me to work with them. As much as I have treasured being a judge, I can now think of nothing more important than joining them, and doing everything in my power to combat today's existential threat to democracy and the rule of law. When I became a senior judge in 2013, my successor was appointed, so my resignation will not create a vacancy to be filled by the president. My colleagues on the United States District Court in Massachusetts and judges on the lower federal courts throughout the country are admirably deciding a variety of cases generated by Trump's many executive orders and other unprecedented actions. However, the Supreme Court has repeatedly removed the temporary restraints imposed on those actions by lower courts in deciding emergency motions on its "shadow docket" with little, if any, explanation. I doubt that if I remained a judge I would fare any better than my colleagues. I resigned in order to speak out, support litigation, and work with other individuals and organizations dedicated to protecting the rule of law and American democracy. I also intend to advocate for the judges who cannot speak publicly for themselves. I cannot be confident that I will make a difference. I am reminded, however, of what Senator Robert F. Kennedy said in 1966 about ending apartheid in South Africa: "Each time a man stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope." Enough of these ripples can become a tidal wave.
November 9, 2025 at 3:18 PM
chrisgeidner.bsky.social
🥹 Thanks, all.

www.lawdork.com
lawdork.com Home +232 new subscribers in the last 24 hours. Your top source is Bluesky.
November 9, 2025 at 7:18 AM
chrisgeidner.bsky.social
But. As always, pointless, annoying, gun-wielding National Guard troops standing around wasting time and money.
Five National Guard troops outside of the U St Metro stop on U St on Saturday night.
November 9, 2025 at 4:52 AM
chrisgeidner.bsky.social
The WSJ on how unbelievably stupid Noem and Lewandowski are.

I don’t care that I’m late to this; it’s to good to pass up.

www.wsj.com/politics/pol...
More broadly, officials across ICE say Noem and Lewandowski have directed them to use a $170 billion infusion of cash from Congress to launch splashy ideas that have proven ineffective or impractical. Among the examples some ICE officials have cited: A few weeks ago, the pair ordered ICE officials to buy 10 737 jets from Spirit Airlines that they said would be used to boost deportation flights— and for their own travel, according to people familiar with the matter. Some officials warned the pair that the effort would be prohibitively expensive compared with hiring more flight contractors, the people said. Once the officials looked into the proposal, they learned that Spirit, which filed for bankruptcy for a second time in August, didn't own the planes. The planes also don't have engines, which would need to be purchased separately. The project has since been put on pause, though DHS recently purchased two Gulfstream jets for $200 million, according to Democrats on the House Appropriations Committee, who were notified by the department. A spokesperson for Spirit didn't respond to a request for comment.
November 9, 2025 at 12:13 AM
chrisgeidner.bsky.social
I know: What?

We don’t know, but here are some thoughts. www.lawdork.com/p/trump-admi...
While it is hard to know what Jackson's thinking was in issuing the order, it is possible that the rush of the litigation and the cost involved led her to want to just give a pause to let the process work its way through. But, it is also important to note that, procedurally, had she denied the request, the Justice Department could have gone to another justice. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, by issuing the order herself, she was able to set the limits.
November 8, 2025 at 3:38 AM
chrisgeidner.bsky.social
BREAKING: Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson issues an administrative stay in the SNAP benefits case, for the First Circuit to issue its ruling on the stay request (“with dispatch”).

Her administrative stay ends 48 hours after that ruling is issued (or upon further order).
ORDER The applicants are seeking a stay of two orders of the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island, case No. 1:25-cv-569. See D. Ct. Minute Entry (Oct. 31, 2025) and Docket Number 34 (Nov. 6, 2025). These orders require the applicants to fully fund benefits for the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program ("SNAP") for the month of November, and to distribute that funding by the end of the day on November 7, 2025 (today). Earlier today, the applicants asked the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit to stay the District Court's orders pending appeal, and to issue an administrative stay to facilitate its consideration of that stay motion. At 6:08 p.m., the First Circuit denied the applicants' request for an administrative stay, but stated that it "intend[s] to issue a decision on [the stay pending appeal] motion as quickly as possible." Rhode Island State Council of Churches v. Rollins, No. 25-2089 (CA1 Nov. 7, 2025). The applicants filed an application in this Court this evening, requesting a stay of the two District Court orders "pending the disposition of the government's appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit and, if the court of appeals affirms those orders, pending the timely filing and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari in this Court." Application at 1. The applicants assert that, without intervention from this Court, they will have to "transfer an estimated $4 billion by tonight" to fund SNAP benefits through November. Ibid. Given the First Circuit's representations, an administrative stay is required to facilitate the First Circuit's expeditious resolution of the pending stay motion. IT IS ORDERED that the District Court's orders are hereby administratively stayed pending disposition of the motion for a stay pending appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in case No. 25-2089 or further order of the undersigned or of the Court. This administrative stay will terminate forty-eight hours after the First Circuit's resolution of the pending motion, which the First Circuit is expected to issue with dispatch. Is/ Ketanji Brown Jackson Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States Dated this 7th day of November, 2025.
November 8, 2025 at 2:26 AM
chrisgeidner.bsky.social
Immergut found that orders authorizing both federalization and deployment of National Guard to Oregon were improper and are enjoined, but she stayed the injunctions as to the federalization, under the terms seen below.

Partial judgment: storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
This Court STAYS IN PART this Partial Final Judgment to the extent that it enjoins the federalization of members of any State's National Guard. With respect to the federalization of the Oregon National Guard, that STAY will be in effect for a period of 14 days. This partial administrative stay "preserves the status quo in which National Guard members have been federalized but not deployed." Order at 6, Oregon v. Trump, No. 25-6268, ECF 90 (9th Cir. Oct. Mississippi v. Johnson, 71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 475, 501 (1866), this injunction applies only against the other Defendants. PAGE 3 - PARTIAL FINAL JUDGMENT Case 3:25-cv-01756-IM Document 147 Filed 11/07/25 • Page 4 of 4 30, 2025). However, with respect to the deployment of any state's National Guard to Oregon, based on any of the above orders, THIS PERMANENT INJUNCTION ORDER IS IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT.
November 8, 2025 at 1:53 AM
chrisgeidner.bsky.social
BREAKING: Following trial, Judge Karin Immergut, a Trump appointee, finds that Trump did not properly invoke federal law to call up the National Guard and "permanently enjoins Defendants’ orders to deploy federalized members of the National Guard to Oregon."
After analyzing these statutory provisions, as applied to the facts in this case, this Court arrives at the necessary conclusion that there was neither "a rebellion or danger of a rebellion" nor was the President "unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States" in Oregon when he ordered the federalization and deployment of the National Guard. 10 U.S.C. § 12406(2) (3). The "precise standard" to demarcate the line past which conditions would satisfy the statutory standard to deploy the military in the streets of American cities is ultimately a question for a higher court to decide. Newsom, 141 F.4th at 1051. But based on this Court's application of Newsom to the factual findings at trial and the meaning of 10 U.S.C. § 12406 in light of history and tradition, this Court finds that wherever this line precisely is, Defendants have failed to clear it. Therefore, for all the reasons stated below, this Court permanently enjoins Defendants' orders to deploy federalized members of the National Guard to Oregon.
November 8, 2025 at 1:31 AM
chrisgeidner.bsky.social
BREAKING: DOJ goes to SCOTUS trying to stop a district court order that USDA pay out full SNAP benefits this month.

The First Circuit denied an administrative stay, but has not yet ruled on the stay request. And, CNN reported that USDA is already processing payments.

DOJ went to SCOTUS anyway.
In the Supreme Court of the United States BROOKE ROLLINS, SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE, ET AL., APPLICANTS RHODE ISLAND STATE COUNCIL OF CHURCHES, ET AL. APPLICATION TO STAY THE ORDERS ISSUED BY THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND AND REQUEST FOR AN IMMEDIATE ADMINISTRATIVE STAY BY 9:30PM D. JOHN SAUER Solicitor General Counsel of Record Department of Justice
November 7, 2025 at 11:50 PM