On Monday The appeal court refused to block the decision that the government pay SNAP in full. That prompted the Trump administration to once again ask the Supreme Court to intervene. In fact, legal issues are likely to become controversial soon because eight Senate Democrats voted with Republicans to begin process to end the ongoing government shutdown. But the sentiment behind the Trump administration's objections to a federal judge's ruling will be yet another example of the lengths to which this administration will go to assert its power.
In part of its appeal, the Trump Justice Department said the judge's order that the administration pay the full amount of November SNAP payments “threatens substantial and irreparable harm to the government that outweighs any alleged harm to plaintiffs.” In other words, the administration said making SNAP payments would harm the government more than not doing so would harm the estimated 42 million low-income Americans who rely on the program, some of whom are desperate without benefits.
On Monday The appeal court refused to block the decision that the government pay SNAP in full. That prompted the Trump administration to once again ask the Supreme Court to intervene. In fact, legal issues are likely to become controversial soon because eight Senate Democrats voted with Republicans to begin process to end the ongoing government shutdown. But the sentiment behind the Trump administration's objections to a federal judge's ruling will be yet another example of the lengths to which this administration will go to assert its power.
Last week, a federal judge ordered the Trump administration to pay the full amount of SNAP benefits for November after the Agriculture Department failed to meet a previous deadline set by the judge to partially fund the program. The Justice Department almost immediately appealed the decision. What caused a flurry of appeals and orders It happened over the weekend, showing, among other things, that the Trump administration was working overtime to fail to provide food to the millions of Americans who rely on the program.
In part of its appeal, the Trump Justice Department said the judge's order that the administration pay the full amount of November SNAP payments “threatens substantial and irreparable harm to the government that outweighs any alleged harm to plaintiffs.” In other words, the administration said making SNAP payments would harm the government more than not doing so would harm the estimated 42 million low-income Americans who rely on the program, some of whom are desperate without benefits.
On Monday The appeal court refused to block the decision that the government pay SNAP in full. That prompted the Trump administration to once again ask the Supreme Court to intervene. In fact, legal issues are likely to become controversial soon because eight Senate Democrats voted with Republicans to begin process to end the ongoing government shutdown. But the sentiment behind the Trump administration's objections to a federal judge's ruling will be yet another example of the lengths to which this administration will go to assert its power.
Last week, a federal judge ordered the Trump administration to pay the full amount of SNAP benefits for November after the Agriculture Department failed to meet a previous deadline set by the judge to partially fund the program. The Justice Department almost immediately appealed the decision. What caused a flurry of appeals and orders It happened over the weekend, showing, among other things, that the Trump administration was working overtime to fail to provide food to the millions of Americans who rely on the program.
In part of its appeal, the Trump Justice Department said the judge's order that the administration pay the full amount of November SNAP payments “threatens substantial and irreparable harm to the government that outweighs any alleged harm to plaintiffs.” In other words, the administration said making SNAP payments would harm the government more than not doing so would harm the estimated 42 million low-income Americans who rely on the program, some of whom are desperate without benefits.
On Monday The appeal court refused to block the decision that the government pay SNAP in full. That prompted the Trump administration to once again ask the Supreme Court to intervene. In fact, legal issues are likely to become controversial soon because eight Senate Democrats voted with Republicans to begin process to end the ongoing government shutdown. But the sentiment behind the Trump administration's objections to a federal judge's ruling will be yet another example of the lengths to which this administration will go to assert its power.
The Supreme Court will decide the case during a period during which it also appears poised to further weaken the Voting Rights Act. Both decisions could have a significant impact on the 2026 midterm elections and 2028 general elections.
— John Light
Trump Administrator: Paying Snap will hurt us more than not paying hungry Americans
Last week, a federal judge ordered the Trump administration to pay the full amount of SNAP benefits for November after the Agriculture Department failed to meet a previous deadline set by the judge to partially fund the program. The Justice Department almost immediately appealed the decision. What caused a flurry of appeals and orders It happened over the weekend, showing, among other things, that the Trump administration was working overtime to fail to provide food to the millions of Americans who rely on the program.
In part of its appeal, the Trump Justice Department said the judge's order that the administration pay the full amount of November SNAP payments “threatens substantial and irreparable harm to the government that outweighs any alleged harm to plaintiffs.” In other words, the administration said making SNAP payments would harm the government more than not doing so would harm the estimated 42 million low-income Americans who rely on the program, some of whom are desperate without benefits.
On Monday The appeal court refused to block the decision that the government pay SNAP in full. That prompted the Trump administration to once again ask the Supreme Court to intervene. In fact, legal issues are likely to become controversial soon because eight Senate Democrats voted with Republicans to begin process to end the ongoing government shutdown. But the sentiment behind the Trump administration's objections to a federal judge's ruling will be yet another example of the lengths to which this administration will go to assert its power.
It's also not entirely clear that requiring ballots to be submitted by Election Day will solely hurt Democrats; Military voters and seniors are among the counties that rely most on voting by mail. Still, the dispute over the issue is consistent with Republicans' war on mail-in voting (a fight that has intensified under Donald Trump) as well as efforts to expand voting rights more generally.
The Supreme Court will decide the case during a period during which it also appears poised to further weaken the Voting Rights Act. Both decisions could have a significant impact on the 2026 midterm elections and 2028 general elections.
— John Light
Trump Administrator: Paying Snap will hurt us more than not paying hungry Americans
Last week, a federal judge ordered the Trump administration to pay the full amount of SNAP benefits for November after the Agriculture Department failed to meet a previous deadline set by the judge to partially fund the program. The Justice Department almost immediately appealed the decision. What caused a flurry of appeals and orders It happened over the weekend, showing, among other things, that the Trump administration was working overtime to fail to provide food to the millions of Americans who rely on the program.
In part of its appeal, the Trump Justice Department said the judge's order that the administration pay the full amount of November SNAP payments “threatens substantial and irreparable harm to the government that outweighs any alleged harm to plaintiffs.” In other words, the administration said making SNAP payments would harm the government more than not doing so would harm the estimated 42 million low-income Americans who rely on the program, some of whom are desperate without benefits.
On Monday The appeal court refused to block the decision that the government pay SNAP in full. That prompted the Trump administration to once again ask the Supreme Court to intervene. In fact, legal issues are likely to become controversial soon because eight Senate Democrats voted with Republicans to begin process to end the ongoing government shutdown. But the sentiment behind the Trump administration's objections to a federal judge's ruling will be yet another example of the lengths to which this administration will go to assert its power.
Republicans tend to insist that ballots be received by Election Day. But disagreements on these issues do not occur quickly or sharply. This case Watson v. Republican National Committeepits Mississippi, which has a voting grace period, against the RNC, which wants the state to do away with it. Thirty states and Washington, D.C., have laws requiring at least some ballots to be counted if they are received after Election Day. one recent analysis. This includes many Republican-governed states.
It's also not entirely clear that requiring ballots to be submitted by Election Day will solely hurt Democrats; Military voters and seniors are among the counties that rely most on voting by mail. Still, the dispute over the issue is consistent with Republicans' war on mail-in voting (a fight that has intensified under Donald Trump) as well as efforts to expand voting rights more generally.
The Supreme Court will decide the case during a period during which it also appears poised to further weaken the Voting Rights Act. Both decisions could have a significant impact on the 2026 midterm elections and 2028 general elections.
— John Light
Trump Administrator: Paying Snap will hurt us more than not paying hungry Americans
Last week, a federal judge ordered the Trump administration to pay the full amount of SNAP benefits for November after the Agriculture Department failed to meet a previous deadline set by the judge to partially fund the program. The Justice Department almost immediately appealed the decision. What caused a flurry of appeals and orders It happened over the weekend, showing, among other things, that the Trump administration was working overtime to fail to provide food to the millions of Americans who rely on the program.
In part of its appeal, the Trump Justice Department said the judge's order that the administration pay the full amount of November SNAP payments “threatens substantial and irreparable harm to the government that outweighs any alleged harm to plaintiffs.” In other words, the administration said making SNAP payments would harm the government more than not doing so would harm the estimated 42 million low-income Americans who rely on the program, some of whom are desperate without benefits.
On Monday The appeal court refused to block the decision that the government pay SNAP in full. That prompted the Trump administration to once again ask the Supreme Court to intervene. In fact, legal issues are likely to become controversial soon because eight Senate Democrats voted with Republicans to begin process to end the ongoing government shutdown. But the sentiment behind the Trump administration's objections to a federal judge's ruling will be yet another example of the lengths to which this administration will go to assert its power.
The Supreme Court announced this morning that it will hear a case that involves a perennial election dispute: Can states count mail-in ballots postmarked by Election Day but received by election officials after Election Day? The crux of the dispute is whether Election Day in federal law is intended to define the deadline by which voters must make their choice and mark it on the ballot, or the deadline by which election officials must receive that ballot.
Republicans tend to insist that ballots be received by Election Day. But disagreements on these issues do not occur quickly or sharply. This case Watson v. Republican National Committeepits Mississippi, which has a voting grace period, against the RNC, which wants the state to do away with it. Thirty states and Washington, D.C., have laws requiring at least some ballots to be counted if they are received after Election Day. one recent analysis. This includes many Republican-governed states.
It's also not entirely clear that requiring ballots to be submitted by Election Day will solely hurt Democrats; Military voters and seniors are among the counties that rely most on voting by mail. Still, the dispute over the issue is consistent with Republicans' war on mail-in voting (a fight that has intensified under Donald Trump) as well as efforts to expand voting rights more generally.
The Supreme Court will decide the case during a period during which it also appears poised to further weaken the Voting Rights Act. Both decisions could have a significant impact on the 2026 midterm elections and 2028 general elections.
— John Light
Trump Administrator: Paying Snap will hurt us more than not paying hungry Americans
Last week, a federal judge ordered the Trump administration to pay the full amount of SNAP benefits for November after the Agriculture Department failed to meet a previous deadline set by the judge to partially fund the program. The Justice Department almost immediately appealed the decision. What caused a flurry of appeals and orders It happened over the weekend, showing, among other things, that the Trump administration was working overtime to fail to provide food to the millions of Americans who rely on the program.
In part of its appeal, the Trump Justice Department said the judge's order that the administration pay the full amount of November SNAP payments “threatens substantial and irreparable harm to the government that outweighs any alleged harm to plaintiffs.” In other words, the administration said making SNAP payments would harm the government more than not doing so would harm the estimated 42 million low-income Americans who rely on the program, some of whom are desperate without benefits.
On Monday The appeal court refused to block the decision that the government pay SNAP in full. That prompted the Trump administration to once again ask the Supreme Court to intervene. In fact, legal issues are likely to become controversial soon because eight Senate Democrats voted with Republicans to begin process to end the ongoing government shutdown. But the sentiment behind the Trump administration's objections to a federal judge's ruling will be yet another example of the lengths to which this administration will go to assert its power.
The Supreme Court announced this morning that it will hear a case that involves a perennial election dispute: Can states count mail-in ballots postmarked by Election Day but received by election officials after Election Day? The crux of the dispute is whether Election Day in federal law is intended to define the deadline by which voters must make their choice and mark it on the ballot, or the deadline by which election officials must receive that ballot.
Republicans tend to insist that ballots be received by Election Day. But disagreements on these issues do not occur quickly or sharply. This case Watson v. Republican National Committeepits Mississippi, which has a voting grace period, against the RNC, which wants the state to do away with it. Thirty states and Washington, D.C., have laws requiring at least some ballots to be counted if they are received after Election Day. one recent analysis. This includes many Republican-governed states.
It's also not entirely clear that requiring ballots to be submitted by Election Day will solely hurt Democrats; Military voters and seniors are among the counties that rely most on voting by mail. Still, the dispute over the issue is consistent with Republicans' war on mail-in voting (a fight that has intensified under Donald Trump) as well as efforts to expand voting rights more generally.
The Supreme Court will decide the case during a period during which it also appears poised to further weaken the Voting Rights Act. Both decisions could have a significant impact on the 2026 midterm elections and 2028 general elections.
— John Light
Trump Administrator: Paying Snap will hurt us more than not paying hungry Americans
Last week, a federal judge ordered the Trump administration to pay the full amount of SNAP benefits for November after the Agriculture Department failed to meet a previous deadline set by the judge to partially fund the program. The Justice Department almost immediately appealed the decision. What caused a flurry of appeals and orders It happened over the weekend, showing, among other things, that the Trump administration was working overtime to fail to provide food to the millions of Americans who rely on the program.
In part of its appeal, the Trump Justice Department said the judge's order that the administration pay the full amount of November SNAP payments “threatens substantial and irreparable harm to the government that outweighs any alleged harm to plaintiffs.” In other words, the administration said making SNAP payments would harm the government more than not doing so would harm the estimated 42 million low-income Americans who rely on the program, some of whom are desperate without benefits.
On Monday The appeal court refused to block the decision that the government pay SNAP in full. That prompted the Trump administration to once again ask the Supreme Court to intervene. In fact, legal issues are likely to become controversial soon because eight Senate Democrats voted with Republicans to begin process to end the ongoing government shutdown. But the sentiment behind the Trump administration's objections to a federal judge's ruling will be yet another example of the lengths to which this administration will go to assert its power.
In case you're worried, she hasn't broken her ten-year unbroken losing streak. This morning the Supreme Court refused to consider her claim to overturn the decision. Obergefell decision that legalized same-sex marriage nationally.
— Josh Kovensky
Another serious voting rights issue reaches SCOTUS
The Supreme Court announced this morning that it will hear a case that involves a perennial election dispute: Can states count mail-in ballots postmarked by Election Day but received by election officials after Election Day? The crux of the dispute is whether Election Day in federal law is intended to define the deadline by which voters must make their choice and mark it on the ballot, or the deadline by which election officials must receive that ballot.
Republicans tend to insist that ballots be received by Election Day. But disagreements on these issues do not occur quickly or sharply. This case Watson v. Republican National Committeepits Mississippi, which has a voting grace period, against the RNC, which wants the state to do away with it. Thirty states and Washington, D.C., have laws requiring at least some ballots to be counted if they are received after Election Day. one recent analysis. This includes many Republican-governed states.
It's also not entirely clear that requiring ballots to be submitted by Election Day will solely hurt Democrats; Military voters and seniors are among the counties that rely most on voting by mail. Still, the dispute over the issue is consistent with Republicans' war on mail-in voting (a fight that has intensified under Donald Trump) as well as efforts to expand voting rights more generally.
The Supreme Court will decide the case during a period during which it also appears poised to further weaken the Voting Rights Act. Both decisions could have a significant impact on the 2026 midterm elections and 2028 general elections.
— John Light
Trump Administrator: Paying Snap will hurt us more than not paying hungry Americans
Last week, a federal judge ordered the Trump administration to pay the full amount of SNAP benefits for November after the Agriculture Department failed to meet a previous deadline set by the judge to partially fund the program. The Justice Department almost immediately appealed the decision. What caused a flurry of appeals and orders It happened over the weekend, showing, among other things, that the Trump administration was working overtime to fail to provide food to the millions of Americans who rely on the program.
In part of its appeal, the Trump Justice Department said the judge's order that the administration pay the full amount of November SNAP payments “threatens substantial and irreparable harm to the government that outweighs any alleged harm to plaintiffs.” In other words, the administration said making SNAP payments would harm the government more than not doing so would harm the estimated 42 million low-income Americans who rely on the program, some of whom are desperate without benefits.
On Monday The appeal court refused to block the decision that the government pay SNAP in full. That prompted the Trump administration to once again ask the Supreme Court to intervene. In fact, legal issues are likely to become controversial soon because eight Senate Democrats voted with Republicans to begin process to end the ongoing government shutdown. But the sentiment behind the Trump administration's objections to a federal judge's ruling will be yet another example of the lengths to which this administration will go to assert its power.
She was a former Kentucky county clerk who caused a stir in the summer of 2015 by refusing to comply with a Supreme Court ruling to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
In case you're worried, she hasn't broken her ten-year unbroken losing streak. This morning the Supreme Court refused to consider her claim to overturn the decision. Obergefell decision that legalized same-sex marriage nationally.
— Josh Kovensky
Another serious voting rights issue reaches SCOTUS
The Supreme Court announced this morning that it will hear a case that involves a perennial election dispute: Can states count mail-in ballots postmarked by Election Day but received by election officials after Election Day? The crux of the dispute is whether Election Day in federal law is intended to define the deadline by which voters must make their choice and mark it on the ballot, or the deadline by which election officials must receive that ballot.
Republicans tend to insist that ballots be received by Election Day. But disagreements on these issues do not occur quickly or sharply. This case Watson v. Republican National Committeepits Mississippi, which has a voting grace period, against the RNC, which wants the state to do away with it. Thirty states and Washington, D.C., have laws requiring at least some ballots to be counted if they are received after Election Day. one recent analysis. This includes many Republican-governed states.
It's also not entirely clear that requiring ballots to be submitted by Election Day will solely hurt Democrats; Military voters and seniors are among the counties that rely most on voting by mail. Still, the dispute over the issue is consistent with Republicans' war on mail-in voting (a fight that has intensified under Donald Trump) as well as efforts to expand voting rights more generally.
The Supreme Court will decide the case during a period during which it also appears poised to further weaken the Voting Rights Act. Both decisions could have a significant impact on the 2026 midterm elections and 2028 general elections.
— John Light
Trump Administrator: Paying Snap will hurt us more than not paying hungry Americans
Last week, a federal judge ordered the Trump administration to pay the full amount of SNAP benefits for November after the Agriculture Department failed to meet a previous deadline set by the judge to partially fund the program. The Justice Department almost immediately appealed the decision. What caused a flurry of appeals and orders It happened over the weekend, showing, among other things, that the Trump administration was working overtime to fail to provide food to the millions of Americans who rely on the program.
In part of its appeal, the Trump Justice Department said the judge's order that the administration pay the full amount of November SNAP payments “threatens substantial and irreparable harm to the government that outweighs any alleged harm to plaintiffs.” In other words, the administration said making SNAP payments would harm the government more than not doing so would harm the estimated 42 million low-income Americans who rely on the program, some of whom are desperate without benefits.
On Monday The appeal court refused to block the decision that the government pay SNAP in full. That prompted the Trump administration to once again ask the Supreme Court to intervene. In fact, legal issues are likely to become controversial soon because eight Senate Democrats voted with Republicans to begin process to end the ongoing government shutdown. But the sentiment behind the Trump administration's objections to a federal judge's ruling will be yet another example of the lengths to which this administration will go to assert its power.
She was a former Kentucky county clerk who caused a stir in the summer of 2015 by refusing to comply with a Supreme Court ruling to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
In case you're worried, she hasn't broken her ten-year unbroken losing streak. This morning the Supreme Court refused to consider her claim to overturn the decision. Obergefell decision that legalized same-sex marriage nationally.
— Josh Kovensky
Another serious voting rights issue reaches SCOTUS
The Supreme Court announced this morning that it will hear a case that involves a perennial election dispute: Can states count mail-in ballots postmarked by Election Day but received by election officials after Election Day? The crux of the dispute is whether Election Day in federal law is intended to define the deadline by which voters must make their choice and mark it on the ballot, or the deadline by which election officials must receive that ballot.
Republicans tend to insist that ballots be received by Election Day. But disagreements on these issues do not occur quickly or sharply. This case Watson v. Republican National Committeepits Mississippi, which has a voting grace period, against the RNC, which wants the state to do away with it. Thirty states and Washington, D.C., have laws requiring at least some ballots to be counted if they are received after Election Day. one recent analysis. This includes many Republican-governed states.
It's also not entirely clear that requiring ballots to be submitted by Election Day will solely hurt Democrats; Military voters and seniors are among the counties that rely most on voting by mail. Still, the dispute over the issue is consistent with Republicans' war on mail-in voting (a fight that has intensified under Donald Trump) as well as efforts to expand voting rights more generally.
The Supreme Court will decide the case during a period during which it also appears poised to further weaken the Voting Rights Act. Both decisions could have a significant impact on the 2026 midterm elections and 2028 general elections.
— John Light
Trump Administrator: Paying Snap will hurt us more than not paying hungry Americans
Last week, a federal judge ordered the Trump administration to pay the full amount of SNAP benefits for November after the Agriculture Department failed to meet a previous deadline set by the judge to partially fund the program. The Justice Department almost immediately appealed the decision. What caused a flurry of appeals and orders It happened over the weekend, showing, among other things, that the Trump administration was working overtime to fail to provide food to the millions of Americans who rely on the program.
In part of its appeal, the Trump Justice Department said the judge's order that the administration pay the full amount of November SNAP payments “threatens substantial and irreparable harm to the government that outweighs any alleged harm to plaintiffs.” In other words, the administration said making SNAP payments would harm the government more than not doing so would harm the estimated 42 million low-income Americans who rely on the program, some of whom are desperate without benefits.
On Monday The appeal court refused to block the decision that the government pay SNAP in full. That prompted the Trump administration to once again ask the Supreme Court to intervene. In fact, legal issues are likely to become controversial soon because eight Senate Democrats voted with Republicans to begin process to end the ongoing government shutdown. But the sentiment behind the Trump administration's objections to a federal judge's ruling will be yet another example of the lengths to which this administration will go to assert its power.
She was a former Kentucky county clerk who caused a stir in the summer of 2015 by refusing to comply with a Supreme Court ruling to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
In case you're worried, she hasn't broken her ten-year unbroken losing streak. This morning the Supreme Court refused to consider her claim to overturn the decision. Obergefell decision that legalized same-sex marriage nationally.
— Josh Kovensky
Another serious voting rights issue reaches SCOTUS
The Supreme Court announced this morning that it will hear a case that involves a perennial election dispute: Can states count mail-in ballots postmarked by Election Day but received by election officials after Election Day? The crux of the dispute is whether Election Day in federal law is intended to define the deadline by which voters must make their choice and mark it on the ballot, or the deadline by which election officials must receive that ballot.
Republicans tend to insist that ballots be received by Election Day. But disagreements on these issues do not occur quickly or sharply. This case Watson v. Republican National Committeepits Mississippi, which has a voting grace period, against the RNC, which wants the state to do away with it. Thirty states and Washington, D.C., have laws requiring at least some ballots to be counted if they are received after Election Day. one recent analysis. This includes many Republican-governed states.
It's also not entirely clear that requiring ballots to be submitted by Election Day will solely hurt Democrats; Military voters and seniors are among the counties that rely most on voting by mail. Still, the dispute over the issue is consistent with Republicans' war on mail-in voting (a fight that has intensified under Donald Trump) as well as efforts to expand voting rights more generally.
The Supreme Court will decide the case during a period during which it also appears poised to further weaken the Voting Rights Act. Both decisions could have a significant impact on the 2026 midterm elections and 2028 general elections.
— John Light
Trump Administrator: Paying Snap will hurt us more than not paying hungry Americans
Last week, a federal judge ordered the Trump administration to pay the full amount of SNAP benefits for November after the Agriculture Department failed to meet a previous deadline set by the judge to partially fund the program. The Justice Department almost immediately appealed the decision. What caused a flurry of appeals and orders It happened over the weekend, showing, among other things, that the Trump administration was working overtime to fail to provide food to the millions of Americans who rely on the program.
In part of its appeal, the Trump Justice Department said the judge's order that the administration pay the full amount of November SNAP payments “threatens substantial and irreparable harm to the government that outweighs any alleged harm to plaintiffs.” In other words, the administration said making SNAP payments would harm the government more than not doing so would harm the estimated 42 million low-income Americans who rely on the program, some of whom are desperate without benefits.
On Monday The appeal court refused to block the decision that the government pay SNAP in full. That prompted the Trump administration to once again ask the Supreme Court to intervene. In fact, legal issues are likely to become controversial soon because eight Senate Democrats voted with Republicans to begin process to end the ongoing government shutdown. But the sentiment behind the Trump administration's objections to a federal judge's ruling will be yet another example of the lengths to which this administration will go to assert its power.
What is inconvenient for this theory is that the Constitution empowers the states to decide the “manner” to select electors. But the idea would be for the court to bring much of this function under federal control.
— Josh Kovensky
Obergefell remains untouched for now
Remember Kim Davis?
She was a former Kentucky county clerk who caused a stir in the summer of 2015 by refusing to comply with a Supreme Court ruling to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
In case you're worried, she hasn't broken her ten-year unbroken losing streak. This morning the Supreme Court refused to consider her claim to overturn the decision. Obergefell decision that legalized same-sex marriage nationally.
— Josh Kovensky
Another serious voting rights issue reaches SCOTUS
The Supreme Court announced this morning that it will hear a case that involves a perennial election dispute: Can states count mail-in ballots postmarked by Election Day but received by election officials after Election Day? The crux of the dispute is whether Election Day in federal law is intended to define the deadline by which voters must make their choice and mark it on the ballot, or the deadline by which election officials must receive that ballot.
Republicans tend to insist that ballots be received by Election Day. But disagreements on these issues do not occur quickly or sharply. This case Watson v. Republican National Committeepits Mississippi, which has a voting grace period, against the RNC, which wants the state to do away with it. Thirty states and Washington, D.C., have laws requiring at least some ballots to be counted if they are received after Election Day. one recent analysis. This includes many Republican-governed states.
It's also not entirely clear that requiring ballots to be submitted by Election Day will solely hurt Democrats; Military voters and seniors are among the counties that rely most on voting by mail. Still, the dispute over the issue is consistent with Republicans' war on mail-in voting (a fight that has intensified under Donald Trump) as well as efforts to expand voting rights more generally.
The Supreme Court will decide the case during a period during which it also appears poised to further weaken the Voting Rights Act. Both decisions could have a significant impact on the 2026 midterm elections and 2028 general elections.
— John Light
Trump Administrator: Paying Snap will hurt us more than not paying hungry Americans
Last week, a federal judge ordered the Trump administration to pay the full amount of SNAP benefits for November after the Agriculture Department failed to meet a previous deadline set by the judge to partially fund the program. The Justice Department almost immediately appealed the decision. What caused a flurry of appeals and orders It happened over the weekend, showing, among other things, that the Trump administration was working overtime to fail to provide food to the millions of Americans who rely on the program.
In part of its appeal, the Trump Justice Department said the judge's order that the administration pay the full amount of November SNAP payments “threatens substantial and irreparable harm to the government that outweighs any alleged harm to plaintiffs.” In other words, the administration said making SNAP payments would harm the government more than not doing so would harm the estimated 42 million low-income Americans who rely on the program, some of whom are desperate without benefits.
On Monday The appeal court refused to block the decision that the government pay SNAP in full. That prompted the Trump administration to once again ask the Supreme Court to intervene. In fact, legal issues are likely to become controversial soon because eight Senate Democrats voted with Republicans to begin process to end the ongoing government shutdown. But the sentiment behind the Trump administration's objections to a federal judge's ruling will be yet another example of the lengths to which this administration will go to assert its power.
Here's how it could happen: A fraudulent voter, pursued by state law enforcement, files a federal lawsuit asking the state to stop prosecuting him, citing a pardon. The lawsuit will then cite Ed Martin's statement, echoed by anti-voting rights activist Cleta Mitchell, that the selection and operation of presidential electors is a federal, not a state, function.
What is inconvenient for this theory is that the Constitution empowers the states to decide the “manner” to select electors. But the idea would be for the court to bring much of this function under federal control.
— Josh Kovensky
Obergefell remains untouched for now
Remember Kim Davis?
She was a former Kentucky county clerk who caused a stir in the summer of 2015 by refusing to comply with a Supreme Court ruling to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
In case you're worried, she hasn't broken her ten-year unbroken losing streak. This morning the Supreme Court refused to consider her claim to overturn the decision. Obergefell decision that legalized same-sex marriage nationally.
— Josh Kovensky
Another serious voting rights issue reaches SCOTUS
The Supreme Court announced this morning that it will hear a case that involves a perennial election dispute: Can states count mail-in ballots postmarked by Election Day but received by election officials after Election Day? The crux of the dispute is whether Election Day in federal law is intended to define the deadline by which voters must make their choice and mark it on the ballot, or the deadline by which election officials must receive that ballot.
Republicans tend to insist that ballots be received by Election Day. But disagreements on these issues do not occur quickly or sharply. This case Watson v. Republican National Committeepits Mississippi, which has a voting grace period, against the RNC, which wants the state to do away with it. Thirty states and Washington, D.C., have laws requiring at least some ballots to be counted if they are received after Election Day. one recent analysis. This includes many Republican-governed states.
It's also not entirely clear that requiring ballots to be submitted by Election Day will solely hurt Democrats; Military voters and seniors are among the counties that rely most on voting by mail. Still, the dispute over the issue is consistent with Republicans' war on mail-in voting (a fight that has intensified under Donald Trump) as well as efforts to expand voting rights more generally.
The Supreme Court will decide the case during a period during which it also appears poised to further weaken the Voting Rights Act. Both decisions could have a significant impact on the 2026 midterm elections and 2028 general elections.
— John Light
Trump Administrator: Paying Snap will hurt us more than not paying hungry Americans
Last week, a federal judge ordered the Trump administration to pay the full amount of SNAP benefits for November after the Agriculture Department failed to meet a previous deadline set by the judge to partially fund the program. The Justice Department almost immediately appealed the decision. What caused a flurry of appeals and orders It happened over the weekend, showing, among other things, that the Trump administration was working overtime to fail to provide food to the millions of Americans who rely on the program.
In part of its appeal, the Trump Justice Department said the judge's order that the administration pay the full amount of November SNAP payments “threatens substantial and irreparable harm to the government that outweighs any alleged harm to plaintiffs.” In other words, the administration said making SNAP payments would harm the government more than not doing so would harm the estimated 42 million low-income Americans who rely on the program, some of whom are desperate without benefits.
On Monday The appeal court refused to block the decision that the government pay SNAP in full. That prompted the Trump administration to once again ask the Supreme Court to intervene. In fact, legal issues are likely to become controversial soon because eight Senate Democrats voted with Republicans to begin process to end the ongoing government shutdown. But the sentiment behind the Trump administration's objections to a federal judge's ruling will be yet another example of the lengths to which this administration will go to assert its power.
The question for me is whether these pardons will turn out to be more than purely symbolic.
Here's how it could happen: A fraudulent voter, pursued by state law enforcement, files a federal lawsuit asking the state to stop prosecuting him, citing a pardon. The lawsuit will then cite Ed Martin's statement, echoed by anti-voting rights activist Cleta Mitchell, that the selection and operation of presidential electors is a federal, not a state, function.
What is inconvenient for this theory is that the Constitution empowers the states to decide the “manner” to select electors. But the idea would be for the court to bring much of this function under federal control.
— Josh Kovensky
Obergefell remains untouched for now
Remember Kim Davis?
She was a former Kentucky county clerk who caused a stir in the summer of 2015 by refusing to comply with a Supreme Court ruling to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
In case you're worried, she hasn't broken her ten-year unbroken losing streak. This morning the Supreme Court refused to consider her claim to overturn the decision. Obergefell decision that legalized same-sex marriage nationally.
— Josh Kovensky
Another serious voting rights issue reaches SCOTUS
The Supreme Court announced this morning that it will hear a case that involves a perennial election dispute: Can states count mail-in ballots postmarked by Election Day but received by election officials after Election Day? The crux of the dispute is whether Election Day in federal law is intended to define the deadline by which voters must make their choice and mark it on the ballot, or the deadline by which election officials must receive that ballot.
Republicans tend to insist that ballots be received by Election Day. But disagreements on these issues do not occur quickly or sharply. This case Watson v. Republican National Committeepits Mississippi, which has a voting grace period, against the RNC, which wants the state to do away with it. Thirty states and Washington, D.C., have laws requiring at least some ballots to be counted if they are received after Election Day. one recent analysis. This includes many Republican-governed states.
It's also not entirely clear that requiring ballots to be submitted by Election Day will solely hurt Democrats; Military voters and seniors are among the counties that rely most on voting by mail. Still, the dispute over the issue is consistent with Republicans' war on mail-in voting (a fight that has intensified under Donald Trump) as well as efforts to expand voting rights more generally.
The Supreme Court will decide the case during a period during which it also appears poised to further weaken the Voting Rights Act. Both decisions could have a significant impact on the 2026 midterm elections and 2028 general elections.
— John Light
Trump Administrator: Paying Snap will hurt us more than not paying hungry Americans
Last week, a federal judge ordered the Trump administration to pay the full amount of SNAP benefits for November after the Agriculture Department failed to meet a previous deadline set by the judge to partially fund the program. The Justice Department almost immediately appealed the decision. What caused a flurry of appeals and orders It happened over the weekend, showing, among other things, that the Trump administration was working overtime to fail to provide food to the millions of Americans who rely on the program.
In part of its appeal, the Trump Justice Department said the judge's order that the administration pay the full amount of November SNAP payments “threatens substantial and irreparable harm to the government that outweighs any alleged harm to plaintiffs.” In other words, the administration said making SNAP payments would harm the government more than not doing so would harm the estimated 42 million low-income Americans who rely on the program, some of whom are desperate without benefits.
On Monday The appeal court refused to block the decision that the government pay SNAP in full. That prompted the Trump administration to once again ask the Supreme Court to intervene. In fact, legal issues are likely to become controversial soon because eight Senate Democrats voted with Republicans to begin process to end the ongoing government shutdown. But the sentiment behind the Trump administration's objections to a federal judge's ruling will be yet another example of the lengths to which this administration will go to assert its power.
The question for me is whether these pardons will turn out to be more than purely symbolic.
Here's how it could happen: A fraudulent voter, pursued by state law enforcement, files a federal lawsuit asking the state to stop prosecuting him, citing a pardon. The lawsuit will then cite Ed Martin's statement, echoed by anti-voting rights activist Cleta Mitchell, that the selection and operation of presidential electors is a federal, not a state, function.
What is inconvenient for this theory is that the Constitution empowers the states to decide the “manner” to select electors. But the idea would be for the court to bring much of this function under federal control.
— Josh Kovensky
Obergefell remains untouched for now
Remember Kim Davis?
She was a former Kentucky county clerk who caused a stir in the summer of 2015 by refusing to comply with a Supreme Court ruling to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
In case you're worried, she hasn't broken her ten-year unbroken losing streak. This morning the Supreme Court refused to consider her claim to overturn the decision. Obergefell decision that legalized same-sex marriage nationally.
— Josh Kovensky
Another serious voting rights issue reaches SCOTUS
The Supreme Court announced this morning that it will hear a case that involves a perennial election dispute: Can states count mail-in ballots postmarked by Election Day but received by election officials after Election Day? The crux of the dispute is whether Election Day in federal law is intended to define the deadline by which voters must make their choice and mark it on the ballot, or the deadline by which election officials must receive that ballot.
Republicans tend to insist that ballots be received by Election Day. But disagreements on these issues do not occur quickly or sharply. This case Watson v. Republican National Committeepits Mississippi, which has a voting grace period, against the RNC, which wants the state to do away with it. Thirty states and Washington, D.C., have laws requiring at least some ballots to be counted if they are received after Election Day. one recent analysis. This includes many Republican-governed states.
It's also not entirely clear that requiring ballots to be submitted by Election Day will solely hurt Democrats; Military voters and seniors are among the counties that rely most on voting by mail. Still, the dispute over the issue is consistent with Republicans' war on mail-in voting (a fight that has intensified under Donald Trump) as well as efforts to expand voting rights more generally.
The Supreme Court will decide the case during a period during which it also appears poised to further weaken the Voting Rights Act. Both decisions could have a significant impact on the 2026 midterm elections and 2028 general elections.
— John Light
Trump Administrator: Paying Snap will hurt us more than not paying hungry Americans
Last week, a federal judge ordered the Trump administration to pay the full amount of SNAP benefits for November after the Agriculture Department failed to meet a previous deadline set by the judge to partially fund the program. The Justice Department almost immediately appealed the decision. What caused a flurry of appeals and orders It happened over the weekend, showing, among other things, that the Trump administration was working overtime to fail to provide food to the millions of Americans who rely on the program.
In part of its appeal, the Trump Justice Department said the judge's order that the administration pay the full amount of November SNAP payments “threatens substantial and irreparable harm to the government that outweighs any alleged harm to plaintiffs.” In other words, the administration said making SNAP payments would harm the government more than not doing so would harm the estimated 42 million low-income Americans who rely on the program, some of whom are desperate without benefits.
On Monday The appeal court refused to block the decision that the government pay SNAP in full. That prompted the Trump administration to once again ask the Supreme Court to intervene. In fact, legal issues are likely to become controversial soon because eight Senate Democrats voted with Republicans to begin process to end the ongoing government shutdown. But the sentiment behind the Trump administration's objections to a federal judge's ruling will be yet another example of the lengths to which this administration will go to assert its power.
However, all of this will make little sense if you continue to support long-debunked conspiracy theories surrounding the 2020 election. This is the only way to preserve a real cause for preserving electoral votes, any cause that would be worth fighting for.
— Josh Kovensky
What's next for these preventative pardons?
The question for me is whether these pardons will turn out to be more than purely symbolic.
Here's how it could happen: A fraudulent voter, pursued by state law enforcement, files a federal lawsuit asking the state to stop prosecuting him, citing a pardon. The lawsuit will then cite Ed Martin's statement, echoed by anti-voting rights activist Cleta Mitchell, that the selection and operation of presidential electors is a federal, not a state, function.
What is inconvenient for this theory is that the Constitution empowers the states to decide the “manner” to select electors. But the idea would be for the court to bring much of this function under federal control.
— Josh Kovensky
Obergefell remains untouched for now
Remember Kim Davis?
She was a former Kentucky county clerk who caused a stir in the summer of 2015 by refusing to comply with a Supreme Court ruling to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
In case you're worried, she hasn't broken her ten-year unbroken losing streak. This morning the Supreme Court refused to consider her claim to overturn the decision. Obergefell decision that legalized same-sex marriage nationally.
— Josh Kovensky
Another serious voting rights issue reaches SCOTUS
The Supreme Court announced this morning that it will hear a case that involves a perennial election dispute: Can states count mail-in ballots postmarked by Election Day but received by election officials after Election Day? The crux of the dispute is whether Election Day in federal law is intended to define the deadline by which voters must make their choice and mark it on the ballot, or the deadline by which election officials must receive that ballot.
Republicans tend to insist that ballots be received by Election Day. But disagreements on these issues do not occur quickly or sharply. This case Watson v. Republican National Committeepits Mississippi, which has a voting grace period, against the RNC, which wants the state to do away with it. Thirty states and Washington, D.C., have laws requiring at least some ballots to be counted if they are received after Election Day. one recent analysis. This includes many Republican-governed states.
It's also not entirely clear that requiring ballots to be submitted by Election Day will solely hurt Democrats; Military voters and seniors are among the counties that rely most on voting by mail. Still, the dispute over the issue is consistent with Republicans' war on mail-in voting (a fight that has intensified under Donald Trump) as well as efforts to expand voting rights more generally.
The Supreme Court will decide the case during a period during which it also appears poised to further weaken the Voting Rights Act. Both decisions could have a significant impact on the 2026 midterm elections and 2028 general elections.
— John Light
Trump Administrator: Paying Snap will hurt us more than not paying hungry Americans
Last week, a federal judge ordered the Trump administration to pay the full amount of SNAP benefits for November after the Agriculture Department failed to meet a previous deadline set by the judge to partially fund the program. The Justice Department almost immediately appealed the decision. What caused a flurry of appeals and orders It happened over the weekend, showing, among other things, that the Trump administration was working overtime to fail to provide food to the millions of Americans who rely on the program.
In part of its appeal, the Trump Justice Department said the judge's order that the administration pay the full amount of November SNAP payments “threatens substantial and irreparable harm to the government that outweighs any alleged harm to plaintiffs.” In other words, the administration said making SNAP payments would harm the government more than not doing so would harm the estimated 42 million low-income Americans who rely on the program, some of whom are desperate without benefits.
On Monday The appeal court refused to block the decision that the government pay SNAP in full. That prompted the Trump administration to once again ask the Supreme Court to intervene. In fact, legal issues are likely to become controversial soon because eight Senate Democrats voted with Republicans to begin process to end the ongoing government shutdown. But the sentiment behind the Trump administration's objections to a federal judge's ruling will be yet another example of the lengths to which this administration will go to assert its power.
In the story, many of the fake voters were deceived in some way. Trump's lawyers told them they were simply preserving the legal option to use the certificates in the event Trump wins one of the dozens of failed lawsuits he has filed; instead, they were presented to Congress as if Trump had won those states. It's the difference between preparing a legal document in the event of a loan and submitting the same document to a financial institution after it has already been denied: one is contingency planning, the other is fraud.
However, all of this will make little sense if you continue to support long-debunked conspiracy theories surrounding the 2020 election. This is the only way to preserve a real cause for preserving electoral votes, any cause that would be worth fighting for.
— Josh Kovensky
What's next for these preventative pardons?
The question for me is whether these pardons will turn out to be more than purely symbolic.
Here's how it could happen: A fraudulent voter, pursued by state law enforcement, files a federal lawsuit asking the state to stop prosecuting him, citing a pardon. The lawsuit will then cite Ed Martin's statement, echoed by anti-voting rights activist Cleta Mitchell, that the selection and operation of presidential electors is a federal, not a state, function.
What is inconvenient for this theory is that the Constitution empowers the states to decide the “manner” to select electors. But the idea would be for the court to bring much of this function under federal control.
— Josh Kovensky
Obergefell remains untouched for now
Remember Kim Davis?
She was a former Kentucky county clerk who caused a stir in the summer of 2015 by refusing to comply with a Supreme Court ruling to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
In case you're worried, she hasn't broken her ten-year unbroken losing streak. This morning the Supreme Court refused to consider her claim to overturn the decision. Obergefell decision that legalized same-sex marriage nationally.
— Josh Kovensky
Another serious voting rights issue reaches SCOTUS
The Supreme Court announced this morning that it will hear a case that involves a perennial election dispute: Can states count mail-in ballots postmarked by Election Day but received by election officials after Election Day? The crux of the dispute is whether Election Day in federal law is intended to define the deadline by which voters must make their choice and mark it on the ballot, or the deadline by which election officials must receive that ballot.
Republicans tend to insist that ballots be received by Election Day. But disagreements on these issues do not occur quickly or sharply. This case Watson v. Republican National Committeepits Mississippi, which has a voting grace period, against the RNC, which wants the state to do away with it. Thirty states and Washington, D.C., have laws requiring at least some ballots to be counted if they are received after Election Day. one recent analysis. This includes many Republican-governed states.
It's also not entirely clear that requiring ballots to be submitted by Election Day will solely hurt Democrats; Military voters and seniors are among the counties that rely most on voting by mail. Still, the dispute over the issue is consistent with Republicans' war on mail-in voting (a fight that has intensified under Donald Trump) as well as efforts to expand voting rights more generally.
The Supreme Court will decide the case during a period during which it also appears poised to further weaken the Voting Rights Act. Both decisions could have a significant impact on the 2026 midterm elections and 2028 general elections.
— John Light
Trump Administrator: Paying Snap will hurt us more than not paying hungry Americans
Last week, a federal judge ordered the Trump administration to pay the full amount of SNAP benefits for November after the Agriculture Department failed to meet a previous deadline set by the judge to partially fund the program. The Justice Department almost immediately appealed the decision. What caused a flurry of appeals and orders It happened over the weekend, showing, among other things, that the Trump administration was working overtime to fail to provide food to the millions of Americans who rely on the program.
In part of its appeal, the Trump Justice Department said the judge's order that the administration pay the full amount of November SNAP payments “threatens substantial and irreparable harm to the government that outweighs any alleged harm to plaintiffs.” In other words, the administration said making SNAP payments would harm the government more than not doing so would harm the estimated 42 million low-income Americans who rely on the program, some of whom are desperate without benefits.
On Monday The appeal court refused to block the decision that the government pay SNAP in full. That prompted the Trump administration to once again ask the Supreme Court to intervene. In fact, legal issues are likely to become controversial soon because eight Senate Democrats voted with Republicans to begin process to end the ongoing government shutdown. But the sentiment behind the Trump administration's objections to a federal judge's ruling will be yet another example of the lengths to which this administration will go to assert its power.
These are the high-ranking people who actually came up with the conspiracy, along with figures like John Eastman, Jim Troupi and others. By January 6, the idea was to use fraudulent election certificates not so much to “preserve” Trump's legal possibility of victory in the courts, as MAGA supporters (and now a DOJ pardon lawyer) still claim, but to obstruct that process: for the notes I receivedRepublicans in Congress had to feign confusion about whether Biden's electors or Trump's fake electors from some swing states were real. That would delay the certification of the election and potentially buy enough time for some outside player — Republican state legislatures, the Supreme Court, whoever — to step in and resolve the dispute in Trump's favor.
In the story, many of the fake voters were deceived in some way. Trump's lawyers told them they were simply preserving the legal option to use the certificates in the event Trump wins one of the dozens of failed lawsuits he has filed; instead, they were presented to Congress as if Trump had won those states. It's the difference between preparing a legal document in the event of a loan and submitting the same document to a financial institution after it has already been denied: one is contingency planning, the other is fraud.
However, all of this will make little sense if you continue to support long-debunked conspiracy theories surrounding the 2020 election. This is the only way to preserve a real cause for preserving electoral votes, any cause that would be worth fighting for.
— Josh Kovensky
What's next for these preventative pardons?
The question for me is whether these pardons will turn out to be more than purely symbolic.
Here's how it could happen: A fraudulent voter, pursued by state law enforcement, files a federal lawsuit asking the state to stop prosecuting him, citing a pardon. The lawsuit will then cite Ed Martin's statement, echoed by anti-voting rights activist Cleta Mitchell, that the selection and operation of presidential electors is a federal, not a state, function.
What is inconvenient for this theory is that the Constitution empowers the states to decide the “manner” to select electors. But the idea would be for the court to bring much of this function under federal control.
— Josh Kovensky
Obergefell remains untouched for now
Remember Kim Davis?
She was a former Kentucky county clerk who caused a stir in the summer of 2015 by refusing to comply with a Supreme Court ruling to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
In case you're worried, she hasn't broken her ten-year unbroken losing streak. This morning the Supreme Court refused to consider her claim to overturn the decision. Obergefell decision that legalized same-sex marriage nationally.
— Josh Kovensky
Another serious voting rights issue reaches SCOTUS
The Supreme Court announced this morning that it will hear a case that involves a perennial election dispute: Can states count mail-in ballots postmarked by Election Day but received by election officials after Election Day? The crux of the dispute is whether Election Day in federal law is intended to define the deadline by which voters must make their choice and mark it on the ballot, or the deadline by which election officials must receive that ballot.
Republicans tend to insist that ballots be received by Election Day. But disagreements on these issues do not occur quickly or sharply. This case Watson v. Republican National Committeepits Mississippi, which has a voting grace period, against the RNC, which wants the state to do away with it. Thirty states and Washington, D.C., have laws requiring at least some ballots to be counted if they are received after Election Day. one recent analysis. This includes many Republican-governed states.
It's also not entirely clear that requiring ballots to be submitted by Election Day will solely hurt Democrats; Military voters and seniors are among the counties that rely most on voting by mail. Still, the dispute over the issue is consistent with Republicans' war on mail-in voting (a fight that has intensified under Donald Trump) as well as efforts to expand voting rights more generally.
The Supreme Court will decide the case during a period during which it also appears poised to further weaken the Voting Rights Act. Both decisions could have a significant impact on the 2026 midterm elections and 2028 general elections.
— John Light
Trump Administrator: Paying Snap will hurt us more than not paying hungry Americans
Last week, a federal judge ordered the Trump administration to pay the full amount of SNAP benefits for November after the Agriculture Department failed to meet a previous deadline set by the judge to partially fund the program. The Justice Department almost immediately appealed the decision. What caused a flurry of appeals and orders It happened over the weekend, showing, among other things, that the Trump administration was working overtime to fail to provide food to the millions of Americans who rely on the program.
In part of its appeal, the Trump Justice Department said the judge's order that the administration pay the full amount of November SNAP payments “threatens substantial and irreparable harm to the government that outweighs any alleged harm to plaintiffs.” In other words, the administration said making SNAP payments would harm the government more than not doing so would harm the estimated 42 million low-income Americans who rely on the program, some of whom are desperate without benefits.
On Monday The appeal court refused to block the decision that the government pay SNAP in full. That prompted the Trump administration to once again ask the Supreme Court to intervene. In fact, legal issues are likely to become controversial soon because eight Senate Democrats voted with Republicans to begin process to end the ongoing government shutdown. But the sentiment behind the Trump administration's objections to a federal judge's ruling will be yet another example of the lengths to which this administration will go to assert its power.
One telling aspect of the pardon is the fake voters on the list. Boris Epstein, who coordinated Trump's criminal defense, is there. He categorically denies that he played a coordinating role in the conspiracy to rig the electors; and yet, here he is. Mark Meadows, Trump's former chief of staff, also received a preemptive pardon. The list also includes three attorneys who pleaded guilty to charges in the Georgia RICO case—Ken Chesebro, Sidney Powell and Jenna Ellis.
These are the high-ranking people who actually came up with the conspiracy, along with figures like John Eastman, Jim Troupi and others. By January 6, the idea was to use fraudulent election certificates not so much to “preserve” Trump's legal possibility of victory in the courts, as MAGA supporters (and now a DOJ pardon lawyer) still claim, but to obstruct that process: for the notes I receivedRepublicans in Congress had to feign confusion about whether Biden's electors or Trump's fake electors from some swing states were real. That would delay the certification of the election and potentially buy enough time for some outside player — Republican state legislatures, the Supreme Court, whoever — to step in and resolve the dispute in Trump's favor.
In the story, many of the fake voters were deceived in some way. Trump's lawyers told them they were simply preserving the legal option to use the certificates in the event Trump wins one of the dozens of failed lawsuits he has filed; instead, they were presented to Congress as if Trump had won those states. It's the difference between preparing a legal document in the event of a loan and submitting the same document to a financial institution after it has already been denied: one is contingency planning, the other is fraud.
However, all of this will make little sense if you continue to support long-debunked conspiracy theories surrounding the 2020 election. This is the only way to preserve a real cause for preserving electoral votes, any cause that would be worth fighting for.
— Josh Kovensky
What's next for these preventative pardons?
The question for me is whether these pardons will turn out to be more than purely symbolic.
Here's how it could happen: A fraudulent voter, pursued by state law enforcement, files a federal lawsuit asking the state to stop prosecuting him, citing a pardon. The lawsuit will then cite Ed Martin's statement, echoed by anti-voting rights activist Cleta Mitchell, that the selection and operation of presidential electors is a federal, not a state, function.
What is inconvenient for this theory is that the Constitution empowers the states to decide the “manner” to select electors. But the idea would be for the court to bring much of this function under federal control.
— Josh Kovensky
Obergefell remains untouched for now
Remember Kim Davis?
She was a former Kentucky county clerk who caused a stir in the summer of 2015 by refusing to comply with a Supreme Court ruling to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
In case you're worried, she hasn't broken her ten-year unbroken losing streak. This morning the Supreme Court refused to consider her claim to overturn the decision. Obergefell decision that legalized same-sex marriage nationally.
— Josh Kovensky
Another serious voting rights issue reaches SCOTUS
The Supreme Court announced this morning that it will hear a case that involves a perennial election dispute: Can states count mail-in ballots postmarked by Election Day but received by election officials after Election Day? The crux of the dispute is whether Election Day in federal law is intended to define the deadline by which voters must make their choice and mark it on the ballot, or the deadline by which election officials must receive that ballot.
Republicans tend to insist that ballots be received by Election Day. But disagreements on these issues do not occur quickly or sharply. This case Watson v. Republican National Committeepits Mississippi, which has a voting grace period, against the RNC, which wants the state to do away with it. Thirty states and Washington, D.C., have laws requiring at least some ballots to be counted if they are received after Election Day. one recent analysis. This includes many Republican-governed states.
It's also not entirely clear that requiring ballots to be submitted by Election Day will solely hurt Democrats; Military voters and seniors are among the counties that rely most on voting by mail. Still, the dispute over the issue is consistent with Republicans' war on mail-in voting (a fight that has intensified under Donald Trump) as well as efforts to expand voting rights more generally.
The Supreme Court will decide the case during a period during which it also appears poised to further weaken the Voting Rights Act. Both decisions could have a significant impact on the 2026 midterm elections and 2028 general elections.
— John Light
Trump Administrator: Paying Snap will hurt us more than not paying hungry Americans
Last week, a federal judge ordered the Trump administration to pay the full amount of SNAP benefits for November after the Agriculture Department failed to meet a previous deadline set by the judge to partially fund the program. The Justice Department almost immediately appealed the decision. What caused a flurry of appeals and orders It happened over the weekend, showing, among other things, that the Trump administration was working overtime to fail to provide food to the millions of Americans who rely on the program.
In part of its appeal, the Trump Justice Department said the judge's order that the administration pay the full amount of November SNAP payments “threatens substantial and irreparable harm to the government that outweighs any alleged harm to plaintiffs.” In other words, the administration said making SNAP payments would harm the government more than not doing so would harm the estimated 42 million low-income Americans who rely on the program, some of whom are desperate without benefits.
On Monday The appeal court refused to block the decision that the government pay SNAP in full. That prompted the Trump administration to once again ask the Supreme Court to intervene. In fact, legal issues are likely to become controversial soon because eight Senate Democrats voted with Republicans to begin process to end the ongoing government shutdown. But the sentiment behind the Trump administration's objections to a federal judge's ruling will be yet another example of the lengths to which this administration will go to assert its power.
It seems almost ridiculous to be litigating this issue more than five years after his defeat that same year. But it's necessary: This weekend, Trump pardoned the fraudulent 2020 voters, as well as several lawyers and campaign members who helped orchestrate the scheme. The pardons are (mostly) symbolic, given that everyone on the list was prosecuted for conspiracy. The president's federal pardon power cannot reach them.
One telling aspect of the pardon is the fake voters on the list. Boris Epstein, who coordinated Trump's criminal defense, is there. He categorically denies that he played a coordinating role in the conspiracy to rig the electors; and yet, here he is. Mark Meadows, Trump's former chief of staff, also received a preemptive pardon. The list also includes three attorneys who pleaded guilty to charges in the Georgia RICO case—Ken Chesebro, Sidney Powell and Jenna Ellis.
These are the high-ranking people who actually came up with the conspiracy, along with figures like John Eastman, Jim Troupi and others. By January 6, the idea was to use fraudulent election certificates not so much to “preserve” Trump's legal possibility of victory in the courts, as MAGA supporters (and now a DOJ pardon lawyer) still claim, but to obstruct that process: for the notes I receivedRepublicans in Congress had to feign confusion about whether Biden's electors or Trump's fake electors from some swing states were real. That would delay the certification of the election and potentially buy enough time for some outside player — Republican state legislatures, the Supreme Court, whoever — to step in and resolve the dispute in Trump's favor.
In the story, many of the fake voters were deceived in some way. Trump's lawyers told them they were simply preserving the legal option to use the certificates in the event Trump wins one of the dozens of failed lawsuits he has filed; instead, they were presented to Congress as if Trump had won those states. It's the difference between preparing a legal document in the event of a loan and submitting the same document to a financial institution after it has already been denied: one is contingency planning, the other is fraud.
However, all of this will make little sense if you continue to support long-debunked conspiracy theories surrounding the 2020 election. This is the only way to preserve a real cause for preserving electoral votes, any cause that would be worth fighting for.
— Josh Kovensky
What's next for these preventative pardons?
The question for me is whether these pardons will turn out to be more than purely symbolic.
Here's how it could happen: A fraudulent voter, pursued by state law enforcement, files a federal lawsuit asking the state to stop prosecuting him, citing a pardon. The lawsuit will then cite Ed Martin's statement, echoed by anti-voting rights activist Cleta Mitchell, that the selection and operation of presidential electors is a federal, not a state, function.
What is inconvenient for this theory is that the Constitution empowers the states to decide the “manner” to select electors. But the idea would be for the court to bring much of this function under federal control.
— Josh Kovensky
Obergefell remains untouched for now
Remember Kim Davis?
She was a former Kentucky county clerk who caused a stir in the summer of 2015 by refusing to comply with a Supreme Court ruling to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
In case you're worried, she hasn't broken her ten-year unbroken losing streak. This morning the Supreme Court refused to consider her claim to overturn the decision. Obergefell decision that legalized same-sex marriage nationally.
— Josh Kovensky
Another serious voting rights issue reaches SCOTUS
The Supreme Court announced this morning that it will hear a case that involves a perennial election dispute: Can states count mail-in ballots postmarked by Election Day but received by election officials after Election Day? The crux of the dispute is whether Election Day in federal law is intended to define the deadline by which voters must make their choice and mark it on the ballot, or the deadline by which election officials must receive that ballot.
Republicans tend to insist that ballots be received by Election Day. But disagreements on these issues do not occur quickly or sharply. This case Watson v. Republican National Committeepits Mississippi, which has a voting grace period, against the RNC, which wants the state to do away with it. Thirty states and Washington, D.C., have laws requiring at least some ballots to be counted if they are received after Election Day. one recent analysis. This includes many Republican-governed states.
It's also not entirely clear that requiring ballots to be submitted by Election Day will solely hurt Democrats; Military voters and seniors are among the counties that rely most on voting by mail. Still, the dispute over the issue is consistent with Republicans' war on mail-in voting (a fight that has intensified under Donald Trump) as well as efforts to expand voting rights more generally.
The Supreme Court will decide the case during a period during which it also appears poised to further weaken the Voting Rights Act. Both decisions could have a significant impact on the 2026 midterm elections and 2028 general elections.
— John Light
Trump Administrator: Paying Snap will hurt us more than not paying hungry Americans
Last week, a federal judge ordered the Trump administration to pay the full amount of SNAP benefits for November after the Agriculture Department failed to meet a previous deadline set by the judge to partially fund the program. The Justice Department almost immediately appealed the decision. What caused a flurry of appeals and orders It happened over the weekend, showing, among other things, that the Trump administration was working overtime to fail to provide food to the millions of Americans who rely on the program.
In part of its appeal, the Trump Justice Department said the judge's order that the administration pay the full amount of November SNAP payments “threatens substantial and irreparable harm to the government that outweighs any alleged harm to plaintiffs.” In other words, the administration said making SNAP payments would harm the government more than not doing so would harm the estimated 42 million low-income Americans who rely on the program, some of whom are desperate without benefits.
On Monday The appeal court refused to block the decision that the government pay SNAP in full. That prompted the Trump administration to once again ask the Supreme Court to intervene. In fact, legal issues are likely to become controversial soon because eight Senate Democrats voted with Republicans to begin process to end the ongoing government shutdown. But the sentiment behind the Trump administration's objections to a federal judge's ruling will be yet another example of the lengths to which this administration will go to assert its power.
It seems almost ridiculous to be litigating this issue more than five years after his defeat that same year. But it's necessary: This weekend, Trump pardoned the fraudulent 2020 voters, as well as several lawyers and campaign members who helped orchestrate the scheme. The pardons are (mostly) symbolic, given that everyone on the list was prosecuted for conspiracy. The president's federal pardon power cannot reach them.
One telling aspect of the pardon is the fake voters on the list. Boris Epstein, who coordinated Trump's criminal defense, is there. He categorically denies that he played a coordinating role in the conspiracy to rig the electors; and yet, here he is. Mark Meadows, Trump's former chief of staff, also received a preemptive pardon. The list also includes three attorneys who pleaded guilty to charges in the Georgia RICO case—Ken Chesebro, Sidney Powell and Jenna Ellis.
These are the high-ranking people who actually came up with the conspiracy, along with figures like John Eastman, Jim Troupi and others. By January 6, the idea was to use fraudulent election certificates not so much to “preserve” Trump's legal possibility of victory in the courts, as MAGA supporters (and now a DOJ pardon lawyer) still claim, but to obstruct that process: for the notes I receivedRepublicans in Congress had to feign confusion about whether Biden's electors or Trump's fake electors from some swing states were real. That would delay the certification of the election and potentially buy enough time for some outside player — Republican state legislatures, the Supreme Court, whoever — to step in and resolve the dispute in Trump's favor.
In the story, many of the fake voters were deceived in some way. Trump's lawyers told them they were simply preserving the legal option to use the certificates in the event Trump wins one of the dozens of failed lawsuits he has filed; instead, they were presented to Congress as if Trump had won those states. It's the difference between preparing a legal document in the event of a loan and submitting the same document to a financial institution after it has already been denied: one is contingency planning, the other is fraud.
However, all of this will make little sense if you continue to support long-debunked conspiracy theories surrounding the 2020 election. This is the only way to preserve a real cause for preserving electoral votes, any cause that would be worth fighting for.
— Josh Kovensky
What's next for these preventative pardons?
The question for me is whether these pardons will turn out to be more than purely symbolic.
Here's how it could happen: A fraudulent voter, pursued by state law enforcement, files a federal lawsuit asking the state to stop prosecuting him, citing a pardon. The lawsuit will then cite Ed Martin's statement, echoed by anti-voting rights activist Cleta Mitchell, that the selection and operation of presidential electors is a federal, not a state, function.
What is inconvenient for this theory is that the Constitution empowers the states to decide the “manner” to select electors. But the idea would be for the court to bring much of this function under federal control.
— Josh Kovensky
Obergefell remains untouched for now
Remember Kim Davis?
She was a former Kentucky county clerk who caused a stir in the summer of 2015 by refusing to comply with a Supreme Court ruling to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
In case you're worried, she hasn't broken her ten-year unbroken losing streak. This morning the Supreme Court refused to consider her claim to overturn the decision. Obergefell decision that legalized same-sex marriage nationally.
— Josh Kovensky
Another serious voting rights issue reaches SCOTUS
The Supreme Court announced this morning that it will hear a case that involves a perennial election dispute: Can states count mail-in ballots postmarked by Election Day but received by election officials after Election Day? The crux of the dispute is whether Election Day in federal law is intended to define the deadline by which voters must make their choice and mark it on the ballot, or the deadline by which election officials must receive that ballot.
Republicans tend to insist that ballots be received by Election Day. But disagreements on these issues do not occur quickly or sharply. This case Watson v. Republican National Committeepits Mississippi, which has a voting grace period, against the RNC, which wants the state to do away with it. Thirty states and Washington, D.C., have laws requiring at least some ballots to be counted if they are received after Election Day. one recent analysis. This includes many Republican-governed states.
It's also not entirely clear that requiring ballots to be submitted by Election Day will solely hurt Democrats; Military voters and seniors are among the counties that rely most on voting by mail. Still, the dispute over the issue is consistent with Republicans' war on mail-in voting (a fight that has intensified under Donald Trump) as well as efforts to expand voting rights more generally.
The Supreme Court will decide the case during a period during which it also appears poised to further weaken the Voting Rights Act. Both decisions could have a significant impact on the 2026 midterm elections and 2028 general elections.
— John Light
Trump Administrator: Paying Snap will hurt us more than not paying hungry Americans
Last week, a federal judge ordered the Trump administration to pay the full amount of SNAP benefits for November after the Agriculture Department failed to meet a previous deadline set by the judge to partially fund the program. The Justice Department almost immediately appealed the decision. What caused a flurry of appeals and orders It happened over the weekend, showing, among other things, that the Trump administration was working overtime to fail to provide food to the millions of Americans who rely on the program.
In part of its appeal, the Trump Justice Department said the judge's order that the administration pay the full amount of November SNAP payments “threatens substantial and irreparable harm to the government that outweighs any alleged harm to plaintiffs.” In other words, the administration said making SNAP payments would harm the government more than not doing so would harm the estimated 42 million low-income Americans who rely on the program, some of whom are desperate without benefits.
On Monday The appeal court refused to block the decision that the government pay SNAP in full. That prompted the Trump administration to once again ask the Supreme Court to intervene. In fact, legal issues are likely to become controversial soon because eight Senate Democrats voted with Republicans to begin process to end the ongoing government shutdown. But the sentiment behind the Trump administration's objections to a federal judge's ruling will be yet another example of the lengths to which this administration will go to assert its power.
