Thread by @rebeccavallas

The injunction halting Trump’s SNAP cuts amid #coronavirus is:

a) obviously great news & a relief to millions

b) a scathing rebuke to Trump & USDA for not listening to Congress or the American people thru the comment process

c) a helluva reminder that comments matter

thread:

Since the opinion is 84 pages long, I read it so you don’t have to.

But for those who want to follow along:

Injunction: oag.dc.gov/sites/default/…

Full opinion: oag.dc.gov/sites/default/…

Some of the most damning rebukes include calling out Trump’s USDA for:

-making arguments that are “not only implausible, they are off-the-wall”
-being “equally brazen in its ignorance of longstanding practice and precedent”
-a rule that is “a solution in search of a problem”

Here are some of the key passages summarizing the court’s reasoning in issuing an injunction halting Trump's SNAP cuts:

The court notes in explaining why the plaintiffs have met their burden for a preliminary injunction halting the rule the “grave harm to the individual plaintiffs who will have to go without the $194 per month they need to buy food.”

“Going without food is an irreparable harm... deprivation of nutrition, and the psychological and physical distress attending that deprivation, are ‘quite likely to impose lingering, if not irreversible’ effects on the individual plaintiffs... which 'back payments cannot erase.'"

The court finds the rule an arbitrary and capricious cut to vital benefits:

“USDA’s logic is arbitrary because it is circular... eras[ing] the concern that general unemployment rates are an inappropriate measure of lack of sufficient jobs for ABAWDs...

...by redefining the thing to be measured in terms of the agency’s preferred measure, namely, general unemployment rates. USDA’s semantic trick does not address the evidence that the rule simply is not measuring what the statute requires: the lack of sufficient jobs for ABAWDs.”

The court explicitly cites the bipartisan rejection by Congress of these very cuts in 2018:

“Congress’s recent rejection of [this policy] is probative of congressional intent... Tellingly, even the House version of the bill did not rely solely on unemployment rates..."

In one of my favorite sections, the court offers a stark reminder of why submitting public comments really does make a difference:

1: “SNAP participants may wield little political or economic power, but nonetheless, USDA’s proposed changes to take nutrition benefits away from almost 700K people prompted more than 100K comments, the majority of which the agency concedes were opposed to the proposed changes.”

2: “Notwithstanding these critical comments, USDA proceeded in the challenged Final Rule to adopt changes that, in some respects, were more draconian than those originally proposed..."

3: “Although the hundreds of thousands of low-income individuals who stand to lose their benefits had little direct voice in the rulemaking process, the process exists to protect them and ensure that the agency cannot terminate their benefits arbitrarily.”

In a particularly 🔥section, the court offers a vocal call for courts across the country to step up and rein in the Trump admin -- with even a sharp jab at the Supreme Court:

“This case illustrates why administrative actions must be subject to court scrutiny. The vast federal bureaucracy wields staggering power over the lives of vulnerable Americans. Agencies like USDA can dictate their access to housing, health care, and food…

“The APA’s requirements—designed to protect these individuals from arbitrary terminations of their benefits and all Americans from agency action run amok—are merely hortatory unless they can be meaningfully enforced by courts...

"The agency’s theory of judicial power threatens to undermine that enforcement function. This Court will not abdicate at the executive branch’s request.”

🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥

“Perhaps that sort of power grab is to be expected from the executive branch. What is unexpected, and dangerous to the maintenance of our constitutional order, is that instead of fighting back, some courts have rolled over....

"In a growing number of cases, the Supreme Court has granted the federal government the relief it seeks.”

(YOWZA!)

Finally (& most importantly for the long-term)—the opinion offers cause for optimism on the eventual ruling on the merits:

“To allow a likely unlawful policy to go forward anywhere at all would be judicial malpractice. Courts exist not to condone such harms but to remedy them."

Meanwhile, on a parallel track, @SpeakerPelosi deserves real credit for playing hardball in the #coronavirus negotiations with the WH & managing to get suspension of Trump’s SNAP cuts (plus an *expansion* of SNAP) into the next response package along with paid sick & more.

@SpeakerPelosi That package passed the House last night and now waits until at least Monday for a Senate vote.

(Importantly, while it's a vital step and a great down payment -- additional #coronavirus relief packages will be urgently needed and will follow.)

@SpeakerPelosi TO RECAP: It took a federal judge & @SpeakerPelosi to stop 700K people losing SNAP amid the #coronavirus pandemic, due to cuts the WH had considered whether to suspend, but decided to let take effect—until the adults in the room stepped in.

https://twitter.com/rebeccavallas/status/1238235382132748288

#HandsOffSNAP

All that being said... TONS of credit is due to the AGs who stepped up to the plate on this lawsuit, @SpeakerPelosi for being our queen, and all the incredible #HandsOffSNAP advocates and commenters who got us to this point.

@SpeakerPelosi In particular: @fractweets @CenterOnBudget @FeedingAmerica @TalkPoverty @amprog for leading on a multi-year #HandsOffSNAP effort to stop these cruel cuts.

@SpeakerPelosi @fractweets @CenterOnBudget @FeedingAmerica @TalkPoverty @amprog In closing (for anyone still reading): never forget, even when it feels like everything is burning around us… organizing and commenting does matter. /fin