Subject: Re: Why Ketanji, Why?

While I agree with Ketanji about almost nothing at all, it's interesting how cynical the ProgLibs are, as to view Ketanji as not an honest jurist, doing her best to rule on the law fairly and impartially--but rather, as a partisan, conniving manipulator going through all kinds of mental calculations solely to try to "beat Trump."

Look. Did you read what she did yoyo marco? Her strategy was shrewd.


Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson issued an administrative stay in November 2025 to temporarily pause a lower court order that required the Trump administration to immediately disburse full Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits during a government shutdown
. Her reasoning, according to legal analysts, was to control the timing of the Supreme Court's future review and expedite the process in the lower court, rather than an outright endorsement of the administration's position.

Key reasons and context for her decision include:

Procedural Management: In her role as the circuit justice for the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Jackson handled the emergency application. The appeals court had not yet issued a formal ruling on the administration's request for a stay, and she granted the administrative stay "to facilitate the First Circuit's expeditious resolution of the pending stay motion".
Influencing the Timeline: Legal experts like Steve Vladeck suggest that by issuing her own specific, temporary stay, Justice Jackson could structure the timing of the legal proceedings. This put pressure on the First Circuit to act quickly, thereby preventing one of her more conservative colleagues from issuing an potentially indefinite administrative stay that would have resulted in a longer pause of benefits.
Acknowledging the Government's Argument: The Trump administration had argued that the lower court judge's order to move funds from other child nutrition programs to cover the SNAP gap was an overreach that "usurped both legislative and executive authority" and could cause a "run on the bank" by judicial fiat. While not necessarily agreeing with the merits, the stay allowed the court system to properly consider the administration's arguments through the appropriate channels.
Temporary Measure: Jackson's order was explicitly temporary and set to expire two days after the appeals court ruled. This highlighted its function as a procedural mechanism to manage the emergency appeal rather than a final ruling on the legality of withholding the funds.