Lightnews — Scholar-powered news

Reposted by Law Dork

Chris Geidner

@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

Reposted by Law Dork

Chris Geidner

@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

Reposted by Law Dork

Chris Geidner

@chrisgeidner.bsky.social

Memo of law: storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...

Memorandum in Support of Motion – #81 in Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. United States Department of Agriculture (D. Mass., 1:25-cv-13165) – CourtListener.com

Memorandum in Support of Motion

storage.courtlistener.com

November 10, 2025 at 7:29 AM

Reposted by Law Dork

Chris Geidner

@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

Law Dork

@lawdorknews.bsky.social

BREAKING: The First Circuit denied the DOJ’s request to block a district court’s enforcement order that the Trump administration pay full SNAP benefits for November. That doesn’t end things, though. Now, the matter goes back to SCOTUS. substack.com/@chrisgeidne...

Chris Geidner (@chrisgeidner)

BREAKING: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit denied the Justice Department’s request to block a district court’s enforcement order that the Trump administration pay full SNAP benefits for...

substack.com

November 10, 2025 at 6:46 AM

Reposted by Law Dork

Chris Geidner

@chrisgeidner.bsky.social

The appeals court limits the denial as to the November 6 order enforcing the original TRO in the Rhode Island case.

(They stayed the second TRO, which I previously described as a belt-and-suspenders approach, so long as the first TRO and enforcement order remain in effect.)

November 10, 2025 at 5:44 AM

Reposted by Law Dork

Chris Geidner

@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

Reposted by Law Dork

Chris Geidner

@chrisgeidner.bsky.social

As always, now would be a good time — if you are the type who cares enough about things that you're paying attention tonight — to make sure you're signed up for Law Dork: www.lawdork.com

Law Dork | Chris Geidner | Substack

The Supreme Court, law, politics, and more. Click to read Law Dork, by Chris Geidner, a Substack publication with tens of thousands of subscribers.

www.lawdork.com

November 10, 2025 at 3:12 AM

Reposted by Law Dork

Chris Geidner

@chrisgeidner.bsky.social

This weekend, USDA sent letters to states and DOJ submitted filings in court threatening states that fully funded SNAP benefits for November with penalties if the states don’t listen to USDA and “undo” the payments.

DOJ says full SNAP payments were "unauthorized," as USDA directs states to "undo" them

A week of chaotic change-ups as food benefits for more than 40 million people hang in the balance. And, for paid subscribers: Closing my tabs.

www.lawdork.com

November 10, 2025 at 3:00 AM

Reposted by Law Dork

Chris Geidner

@chrisgeidner.bsky.social

NEW: DOJ says full SNAP payments were "unauthorized," as USDA directs states to "undo" them.

A week of chaotic change-ups as food benefits for more than 40 million people hang in the balance.

Tonight, at Law Dork:

DOJ says full SNAP payments were "unauthorized," as USDA directs states to "undo" them

A week of chaotic change-ups as food benefits for more than 40 million people hang in the balance. And, for paid subscribers: Closing my tabs.

www.lawdork.com

November 10, 2025 at 1:05 AM

Reposted by Law Dork

Chris Geidner

@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

Law Dork

@lawdorknews.bsky.social

Here's a note at Law Dork from @chrisgeidner.bsky.social on this: substack.com/@chrisgeidne...

Chris Geidner @chrisgeidner.bsky.social · 2d

BREAKING: First Circuit denies DOJ's request for an administrative stay of the SNAP benefits TRO out of Rhode Island.

DOJ's stay request remains pending, and the panel is working on a ruling on that.

In a November 6 order, the district court granted the motion to enforce its October 31 order, concluding that the government had failed to either fully fund SNAP for November or to resolve administrative and clerical burdens such that partial payments would be made. It therefore directed the government "to make full SNAP payments ... by utilizing available Section 32 funds in combination with the contingency funds." In the same November 6 order, the district court issued a second temporary restraining order concluding that the government's decision not to use Section 32 funds to issue full SNAP benefits in November was arbitrary and capricious and similarly directing the government to make full payments of SNAP benefits by November 7, including by using the Section 32 fund.
The government filed a notice of appeal and has moved to stay pending appeal the district court's November 6 orders. The government requests a stay on the merits and an administrative stay. We note that in its stay briefing to us, the government has not disputed that it may under 7 U.S.C. § 2257 use the Section 32 fund to cover the provision of SNAP benefits for the month of November. Because the November 6 orders provide the same relief, the government would need to establish that it is entitled to a stay of both orders in order to receive the relief that it requests from being required to make full SNAP payments by utilizing available Section 32 funds in combination with the contingency funds.
The request for an administrative stay is denied. The government's motion for a stay pending appeal remains pending, and we intend to issue a decision on that motion as quickly as possible.

November 7, 2025 at 11:32 PM

Reposted by Law Dork

Chris Geidner

@chrisgeidner.bsky.social

This will also go to the First Circuit. This is another case where, despite the PI against it, DOJ waited nearly until its 60-day deadline to file its notice of appeal.

Preliminary injunction: storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...

Notice of Appeal: storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...

Notice of Appeal – #71 in State of New York v. U.S. Department of Justice (D.R.I., 1:25-cv-00345) – CourtListener.com

NOTICE OF APPEAL by Pamela Bondi, Lori Chavez-DeRemer, Federation for American Immigration Reform, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Linda McMahon, U.S. Department of Education, U.S. Department of Justice, U.S....

storage.courtlistener.com

November 7, 2025 at 11:06 PM

Reposted by Law Dork

Chris Geidner

@chrisgeidner.bsky.social

Even as USDA began paying out SNAP benefits while DOJ tried to get a stay, DOJ today filed a notice of appeal in the case over the Trump administration's efforts to force many other federally funded public services to require ID checks for immigration purposes.

From the 9/10 prelim injunction:

The Government's new policy, across the board, seems to be this: "Show me your papers."? If the Government's plan goes into effect, immigration verification will
be necessary for individuals to access emergency services for domestic violence
victims and veterans, homeless shelters, soup kitchens, mental health crisis programs, and plenty more. See, e.g, ECF No. 4-46 4 38 ("Worse still, the population served primarily by PATH funding, which includes a significant portion of unhoused
individuals (including veterans, victims of domestic violence, and individuals with chronic health disorders), are highly unlikely to have access to documentation now necessary to prove their eligibility as of July 14, 2025."); No. 4-55 1 14 ("People going to access a soup kitchen or a food bank would have to produce I.D. to get inside,
regardless of immigration status. The result is that fewer people will get critical anti-
poverty resources due to immigrant communities avoiding services but also because, generally, people living in poverty at times lack government identification."); No. 4-

71 1926-30 (explaining similar problems for emergency mental health crisis
programs).
While reasonable policymakers can debate the merits of restricting access to
programs to lawful citizens—and it is surely not this Court's job to wade into that
debate the Agencies offer at best incomplete answers to serious questions. Under
the APA, that is a serious problem. See 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). And they did so in a rushed way, without seeking comment from the public or interested parties. Under
the APA, that is also a serious problem. See 5 U.S.C. § 553(b) (A).
One last problem (at least to start). The Government argues that it has
somehow interpreted this statute incorrectly for the nearly thirty years that it has been the law. In its view, everyone (from every past administration) has
misunderstood it from the start—at least until last month, when the right way to read it became clear to the Government. The Court is skeptical of that.

November 7, 2025 at 11:02 PM

Reposted by Law Dork

Chris Geidner

@chrisgeidner.bsky.social

Yes, USDA says it is fully funding SNAP benefits in complying with the TRO — www.cnn.com/2025/11/07/p... — and I have seen anecdotal news out of some states of payments, but DOJ has not withdrawn the stay request, so I was watching that closely until we got past close of business, at least.

Trump administration starts funding full SNAP benefits for November | CNN Politics

The US Department of Agriculture announced Friday that it is working to fully fund food stamp benefits for November to comply with a federal court order, and the process should be completed later in t...

www.cnn.com

November 7, 2025 at 10:53 PM

Reposted by Law Dork

Chris Geidner

@chrisgeidner.bsky.social

Note: The First Circuit has issued no order thus far, so the TRO remains in effect.

Chris Geidner @chrisgeidner.bsky.social · 2d

NEWS: In its appeal of the district court's order that November SNAP benefits be fully paid out by today, DOJ this morning asked for an administrative stay or stay by 4p today.

The plaintiffs just filed their opposition.

Now, we wait on the First Circuit.

Rhode Island State Council of Churches v. Rollins

First Circuit stay motion caption page

November 7, 2025 at 10:36 PM

Law Dork

@lawdorknews.bsky.social

Cornell University signed a settlement agreement with the Trump administration today. Here's @chrisgeidner.bsky.social's thread —>

Chris Geidner @chrisgeidner.bsky.social · 2d

BREAKING: Cornell caved.

Here is the settlement agreement, signed today by the university's president, Michael Kotlikoff: statements.cornell.edu/2025/documen...

SIGNATURES
For Cornell University:
Michael I. Kotlikoff
President of Cornell University
Office of the President
300 Day Hall
Cornell University
Ithaca, NY 14853
Ben the Winited States (including but not limited to the U.S. Department of Health & Human Servives and the U.S, Department of Education):
/N
istant Attorney General
U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20530
For the Department of Health and Human Services:
Paula Matana S
Paula M. Stannard
Director, Office for Civil Rights
U.S. Department of Health & Human Services
200 Independence Avenue, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20201
Effective Date:
14/7/2025.

November 7, 2025 at 5:33 PM

Law Dork

@lawdorknews.bsky.social

Here's a brief note from @chrisgeidner.bsky.social at Law Dork on this: substack.com/@chrisgeidne...

Chris Geidner @chrisgeidner.bsky.social · 3d

BREAKING: The Sixth Circuit, in a 10-7 en banc decision, holds that an Ohio school district's anti-bullying policy that requires students to use children's preferred pronouns is likely unconstitutional on these facts.

Judge Murphy, a Trump appointee, writes the court's decision.

OPINION
MURPHY, Circuit Judge. An Ohio public school district bars its students from referring to transgender and nonbinary classmates using the pronouns that match their biological sex if the classmates prefer to go by different pronouns. The plaintiff in this case has parent and student members who believe that a person's sex is immutable. The members want to express this view by using biological pronouns. And they believe that they would convey a falsehood —that a person's gender is fluid—if they use preferred pronouns. So the plaintiff challenged the school district's speech ban on behalf of its members under the First Amendment's Free Speech Clause.
This case about pronouns pits two important interests against each other. On the one hand, the school district has prohibited speech (biological pronouns) that expresses a message on a matter of pressing public concern. And because the district requires other speech (preferred pronouns) that expresses a competing view, it has discriminated based on its students' viewpoints. Its approach thus raises serious free-speech concerns. On the other hand, the school district rightly responds that it has a duty to protect all students- including transgender and nonbinary students— from bullying and harassment. And this protection, while necessarily restricting speech, does not violate the Free Speech Clause. So which of these competing concerns should prevail in this case?

The Supreme Court's cases provide a clear answer. A school district may not restrict personal speech on matters of public concern unless the speech would "materially and substantially disrupt" school activities or infringe the legal "rights of others" in the school community. Tinker
v. Des Moines Indep. Cmty. Sch. Dist., 393 U.S. 503, 513 (1969). In this case's current posture, the school district has fallen far short of meeting this demanding standard. It introduced no evidence that the use of biological pronouns would disrupt school functions or qualify as harassment under Ohio law. Our society continues to debate whether biological pronouns are appropriate or offensive just as it continues to debate many other issues surrounding transgender rights. The school district may not skew this debate by forcing one side to change the way it conveys its message or by compelling it to express a different view. We thus reverse and remand
Case: 23-3630
Document: 253-2
Filed: 11/06/2025
Page: 4
No. 23-3630
Defending Educ. v. Olentangy Loc.
Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., et al.
Page 4
for the entry of an appropriately tailored preliminary injunction barring the district from punishing students for the commonplace use of biological pronouns. Yet nothing we say here forecloses the district from enforcing its anti-harassment policies against the abuse of transgender students just as it enforces those policies against the abuse of all other students.

November 7, 2025 at 3:59 AM

Reposted by Law Dork

Chris Geidner

@chrisgeidner.bsky.social

Here is today's full en banc ruling, which includes several concurring opinions (some of which would have gone further and some assessing 1A law), as well as the dissent: storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...

And here is the vacated 2-1 panel opinion: storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...

November 7, 2025 at 3:29 AM

Reposted by Law Dork

Chris Geidner

@chrisgeidner.bsky.social

Judge Stranch, an Obama appointee who wrote the 2-1 majority opinion on the panel (which had rejecting the appeal from the parents' group challenging the policy), writes the dissent for the seven dissenting judges on the en banc rehearing:

Consistent with these legal and moral imperatives, the Olentangy Local School District Board of Education has long maintained a set of rules to prohibit discrimination and harassment among students. Together, these rules amount to a ban on harassment, intimidation, and bullying.
Twelve years ago, the District amended its rules to explicitly include gender identity, thereby applying to it the same prohibitions as those governing traits such as race, ethnicity, and religion.
For over a decade, these rules functioned without issue-until Defending Education filed this challenge. It contends that the children of its parent-members are entitled to intentionally use non-preferred pronouns to refer to and to directly address all students-including transgender and nonbinary students—in District schools without regard to the effect such statements may have on these children. The majority opinion agrees. For the reasons that follow, I respectfully dissent.

November 7, 2025 at 3:25 AM

Reposted by Law Dork

Chris Geidner

@chrisgeidner.bsky.social

BREAKING: The Sixth Circuit, in a 10-7 en banc decision, holds that an Ohio school district's anti-bullying policy that requires students to use children's preferred pronouns is likely unconstitutional on these facts.

Judge Murphy, a Trump appointee, writes the court's decision.

November 7, 2025 at 3:20 AM

Reposted by Law Dork

Chris Geidner

@chrisgeidner.bsky.social

UPDATE: Here's the written district court order that the Trump administration pay full SNAP benefit payments for this month by Friday. storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...

DOJ has already filed a notice of appeal to the First Circuit. storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...

III.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, the Plaintiffs' Motion to Enforce is GRANTED, as well as the Plaintiffs' Motion for a new TRO. (ECF No. 22.) The Defendants are
26
Case 1:25-cv-00569-JJM-AEM Document 34
Filed 11/06/25
674
Page 27 of 27 PagelD #:
ORDERED to make full payments of November SNAP benefits to the states by Friday, November 7, 2025, by utilizing available Section 32 funds in combination with the contingency funds.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/John J. McConnell, Jr.

November 7, 2025 at 2:16 AM

Law Dork

@lawdorknews.bsky.social

Must-read report from @chrisgeidner.bsky.social on today’s SCOTUS order allowing the Trump administration to implement its anti-trans and anti-nonbinary passport policy.

Breaking: SCOTUS lets Trump administration implement anti-trans, anti-nonbinary passport policy

The Democratic appointees, led by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, dissented. The ruling, which applies during litigation, effectively reverses two lower court rulings.

www.lawdork.com

November 7, 2025 at 12:41 AM

Reposted by Law Dork

Chris Geidner

@chrisgeidner.bsky.social

BREAKING: SCOTUS lets Trump administration implement anti-trans, anti-nonbinary passport policy.

The Democratic appointees, led by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, dissented. The ruling, which applies during litigation, effectively reverses two lower court rulings.

Today, at Law Dork: