Off and running, the judge is speaking very slowly and deliberately. Reminding us that in the prior hearing 10/30, the government argued that the states don't have standing and she had disagreed. Mentioning the Rhode Island suit. Also remarks that only some of the states brought this suit and there is a "concern" about nationwide injunctions (how about that, acknowledging it!) but asking everyone to agree that no matter what, this is going to affect everybody. The admin lawyer (a young-sounding man) agrees with her that it has to be the same for everybody.
Judge also recaps her decision that the contingency fund has to be applied to SNAP benefits. She is referring to this as an order, however I don't think she actually specifically ordered that? She only had ordered that they submit their actions to her? Already I think she doesn't know what she did. But the gov says they had not objected and they were authorizing partial benefits. She admits that the Rhode Island case moved faster than she did (very true). She also remarks on Rhode Island's order that they needed to do full benefits.
Judge remarks that in this case, the plaintiffs were repeatedly urging her to take action, but the gov position was look, we are addressing this via the Rhode Island case and also via appeal. Judge wonders about the utility of doing this in two places, Massachusetts and Rhode Island. Judge continues to recap the appeals process. Apparently the 1st Circuit refused to allow the gov to file their appeal after hours, LOL that's amazing.
Judge comes to the USDA notices that were going out in the past few days, emphasizing the words carefully, so we are probably going to have some pedantic fighting about what they said and didn't say and did not authorize. Sure enough, "But it didn't SAY there was an appeal pending!" So she's going to side with the states and claim they didn't understand the letter telling them to hold off on submitting their full SNAP requests. "It doesn't say anywhere that it ISN'T going forward!" So the fuck what, lady? It says what it says and the states jumped the gun. But the judge is saying the guidance has "some ambiguity to it." The admin lawyer is holding his own pretty well but the judge is getting very agitated. She acknowledges that the gov "has every right" to appeal and all that but everybody was trying to move forward. And "there's now a mess on our hands!"
Admin lawyer reminds the judge that some states went ahead and submitted for full bennies without guidance or authorization from USDA. The judge is unpersuaded, again insisting that the letter has "some ambiguity" and that it doesn't explicitly say "don't do anything, because we are seeking a stay." What concerns her apparently is I guess that the government went ahead and appealed without telling the states they were going to. And she's pissed that they "threatened the states" about their unauthorized submittal for full SNAP benefits and telling them to undo it. She sounds like a mom punishing her kid for cutting class. And she accuses them of causing confusion.
Admin lawyer disagrees and says the states' confusion is of their own making and they BRAZENLY (BRAZENLY!) went ahead and did their thing without authorization. He's raising his voice a bit and probably needs to cool it. He points out that the Rhode Island judge's order was not self-executing. The admin was making the funds available to the states, and some states jumped the gun and it's on them. "Mr. Becker, these are very hot times right now!" the judge squeals. Whose fault is that, bitch? Oh no we're not allowed to talk about that I guess.
The judge doesn't appreciate the "brazen" comment. She also doesn't appreciate the reminder that these states were not part of the injunction in Rhode Island. She is still lecturing him as if he really fucked up at school. The admin lawyer valiantly tries to remind her that the states were still under guidance that they should've stuck to. She continues to flip out that the 11/7 guidance said they were complying with the Rhode Island order. Yes, we are having a lengthy back and forth about the words that were in the guidance and words that were not in it.
Admin lawyer remarks that the states have not even submitted for partial benefits, which they could do today. Judge snippily is all, "Why would they do that? There's an order for full benefits!" The programming of states' computers for partial benefits will take weeks, how will they provide the partial benefits without reprogramming their computers? Some states have already done so, but apparently some states can't (interjection from the Massachusetts lawyer).
Gov: "All we were ordered to do on the 7th was provide payment to the states" and the judge doesn't care, she's keeping her stay in place on the nasty letter USDA issued. Gov wants a written order, she will issue one. She is so pissed that they sent out that nasty letter "ON A SATURDAY NIGHT!" "It would seem to me that if the agency is simply trying to comply with the law, and with the executive branch's preferences on policies, a piece of that wouldn't be trying to play vindictive games with the states." That is a direct quote from the federal district judge. "To start sending threatening letters on a Saturday night?!"
Admin lawyer tries to point out that some states such as Minnesota did in fact act improperly after the stay was entered, but the judge doesn't have that record in front of her so she doesn't believe it. The state lawyer chimes in that they could have sent something out on Friday night, I'm starting to bleed out of my ears while this is going on.
"Adrian D. Moon, attorney and pro se" just butted in. I hope you get arrested, asshole.
The judge is suddenly slightly calmer after that interjection, but she's still not looking to cut the government any slack. There's discussion about the fact that the states are not parties to the Rhode Island case. They were trying to insert themselves as amici etc. but the judge wants to issue an order giving them full protection in that case as parties. "In an abundance of caution, is there any reason that this court should not issue an order essentially parallel to the Rhode Island one to make sure the states have the same protection? Admin lawyer hastily says that it would only add more confusion. The SCOTUS orders will be binding on everybody. "The states should just wait for guidance from FNS" but the judge still harps on the prior arguments, blah blah words, blah blah not parties.
(Meanwhile, I have the Senate live feed open in a tab and they've been sitting there all afternoon doing fuck all. Just so everybody knows.)
Admin lawyer remarks on the states having overdrawn their letters of credit etc. and they just want the states to wait for further guidance before doing anything else. State lawyer obviously wants another order to be entered even though the Rhode Island order already told them to issue full benefits. "This argument confuses me" because the money is supposed to go to beneficiaries. She wants an order from this judge specifically to allow states to issue full benefits now now now now now.
Judge: If she does issue another order, there's no point telling the government to do something while there's a stay on the other order, we don't want more confusion. But she's gearing up to issue one anyway, because fuck the government. She does assume they would immediately appeal if she does issue such an order.
Now the judge wants to wind back the clock to 10/31, 11/3, that time period. She's reminding herself of what her actual order said, which was to evaluate whether partial funds would be issued. But we are here today on the 10th of November, and now we have Rhode Island, the 1st Circuit, and a tentative deal in Congress. "Isn't there an obligation of the USDA to reconsider the HAVOC here of partial payments, vs. applying these monies?" She's trying to wheedle them into just giving up and taking those child nutrition funds for SNAP to stave off the CHAOS of the partial payments. Admin lawyer reminds her that several states have already succeeded in the partial payments and the other states should do the same. Judge keeps arguing about USDA having an obligation to do the right thing blah blah. Admin lawyer asserts that USDA has already used its discretion on that matter.
"Uh-oh!" They lost the state lawyer apparently. Admin lawyer plows ahead regardless, trying to impress upon her that they're not fucking taking those child nutrition funds. The funding questions themselves are up to Congress. "It's up to Congress because you've chosen not to pay the benefits," she snots back. He tries to explain how the child nutrition funds are obtained, she doesn't care. "People are hungry right now!" Admin lawyer: "This is a decision that the department has made." She keeps arguing, raising her voice again, insisting that the big bad government is maliciously choosing not to use the child nutrition money when they could if they wanted to, for fuck's sake she's not letting go of this bone. But neither is the admin lawyer.
Admin lawyer: "The USDA HAS provided partial benefits," he insists, and she really doesn't have a leg to stand on. Loooong pause while she tries to think of a comeback. Finally she brings up the tables for partial benefits that the gov submitted. The states claim the minimum amounts don't follow the regulatory scheme. She is reaching HARD to find any little technically to fuck the government on. He was not prepared to address that specific thing today but he believes it comes down to a matter of calculation/interpretation and the states doing it differently. Judge has new vigor in this argument and is digging in. She's probably texting with the states' lawyer behind the scenes.
Admin lawyer is not getting sucked into the tables argument. States' lawyer is back and jumps in to say it's not ambiguous at all blah blah who cares. Judge agrees with her and claims to have cross-checked the regulations. "So assume I'm right for one minute," what should the states do? Admin lawyer: "Even assuming you're right, the states need to wait for FNS guidance" and also she's not right. So she's going to order them to update the guidance, because fuck the government (while in the same sentence wanting to protect against additional litigation).
And they are in recess, suddenly, we are done.
