This is another incident of people in our government playing chess instead of checkers.
--Kim
This is a good explanation of why Justice Katanji Brown Jackson's decision issued the administrative stay.
I see from the comments to my post of Prof. Steve Vladeck's explainer that folks are still confused. How it is that Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson did the right thing in issuing an administrative stay in the SNAP funding cases?
I'm going to try to break this down again so that people have a clearer sense of what is going on. But I want to start from a basic premise: Justice Jackson is trying to HELP not HURT here. People who leapt to the conclusion that she is part of some evil SCOTUS plot to deny food to starving children need to take a breath. (This is what the media click bait everywhere sought to drive.)
It's always helpful to assume goodwill from the three liberal judges and work backward from there. Let's not attack the good team players!
With that out of the way, let's walk through some things.
Here's the background to this.
A federal judge ordered the government to fully fund SNAP benefits for November. The government appealed that order. That was the really evil thing that started this off. Why appeal a judge's order that is asking you to feed hungry people like you should do under the law?
Meanwhile, the White House asked for an "administrative stay" — meaning a temporary pause of the judge's order so that the appeals court can consider the appeal. 
The appeals court said no to the administrative stay late Friday afternoon. Justice Jackson handles emergency matters from that circuit, so she stepped in and issued the administrative stay herself, late Friday. 
But, but, but…why?!
Fair question. Her order said in effect: "We're pausing the judge's order while the First Circuit considers the stay-motion, and this pause will end 48 hours after the First Circuit decides." 
This was the RIGHT move to make. Justice Jackson used the tools she had to force a *faster* process rather than let things drag indefinitely.
If the judge's order were allowed to go into effect immediately, it might be legally messy. If the case got delayed, millions might go without benefits. Why? Because if Justice Jackson *didn't* grant the administrative stay, there was a strong possibility that five justices on SCOTUS would step in and grant one. And here's the thing: They could do it potentially with **no deadline.**

So she took control of the case the only way she could. If this were a Hearts game, she "took the trick" and some points, but also assumed control of play. Now the pause is temporary, it ends 48 hours after the appeals court acts, and she has signaled the appeals court must act quickly.
Her other option was to deny the administrative stay, but then the full Court could weigh in to overrule her. If the **full** Court granted the stay, it might have stretched out for weeks (or more) before a decision was made — while still blocking the judge's order. She reduced the chance of that by acting.
Justice Jackson's stay has an automatic time-limit, so the appeals court is under pressure. In that sense, she chose "the least-bad option" given the messy facts and timing.
Note that Justice Jackson's stay wasn't a final ruling on whether the government is right or wrong. The stay simply pauses the lower court's order while the appeals process catches up. It's like a day or two more.
She definitely wasn't endorsing the lower court's order nor giving the government a permanent win. The stay is temporary, and she's hoping the First Circuit issues a full opinion soon.
Hope this helps…
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment