If Chief Justice John Roberts or Justice Alito or Justice Thomas had puta stay on the orders of lower federal courts to fully fund SNAP–the program that pays fo feed 42 million impoverished Americans, we could safely conclude that they are cruel and don’t care whether poor people can afford a meal.

But it was shocking on Friday night to learn that it was Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson–one of the most liberal members of the High Court–who ordered a 48-hour stay in the lower court’s order to fully fund SNAP.

How could this be?

Steve Vladeck, a law professor at Georgetown University and noted Constitutional scholar, explains that Justice brown was acting strategically and hoped to outmaneuver the conservative majority.

Follow his reasoning. Open the link and finish reading his analysis.

He wrote:

A very quick explainer on what (and why) Justice Jackson issued an “administrative stay” in the SNAP case late on Friday night, and on what’s likely to happen next

STEVE VLADECK

Welcome back to “One First,” a (more-than) weekly newsletter that aims to make the U.S. Supreme Court more accessible to lawyers and non-lawyers alike. I’m grateful to all of you for your continued support, and I hope that you’ll consider sharing some of what we’re doing with your networks:

I wanted to put out a very brief post to try to provide a bit of context for Justice Jackson’s single-justice order, handed down shortly after 9 p.m. ET on Friday night, that imposed an “administrative stay” of a district court order that would’ve required the Trump administration to use various contingency funds to pay out critical benefits under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).

It may surprise folks that Justice Jackson, who has been one of the most vocal critics of the Court’s behavior on emergency applications from the Trump administration, acquiesced in even a temporary pause of the district court’s ruling in this case. But as I read the order, which says a lot more than a typical “administrative stay” from the Court, Jackson was stuck between a rock and a hard place—given the incredibly compressed timing that was created by the circumstances of the case.

In a world in which Justice Jackson either knew or suspected that at least five of the justices would grant temporary relief to the Trump administration if she didn’t, the way she structured the stay means that she was able to try to control timing of the Supreme Court’s (forthcoming) review—and to create pressure for it to happen faster than it otherwise might have. In other words, it’s a compromise—one with which not everyone will agree, but which strikes me as eminently defensible under these unique (and, let’s be clear, maddening and entirely f-ing avoidable) circumstances.

I. How We Got Here

Everyone agrees that, among the many increasingly painful results of the government shutdown, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) can no longer spend the funds Congress appropriated to cover SNAP—a program that helps to fund food purchases for one in eight (42 million!) Americans. Everyone also agrees that there are other sources of appropriated money that the President has the statutory authority to rely upon to at least partially fund SNAP benefits for the month of November. The two questions that have provoked the most legal debate is whether (1) he has the authority to fully fund SNAP; and (2) either way, whether federal courts can order him to use whatever authorities he has.

The dispute in the case that reached the Supreme Court on Friday involves a lawsuit that asked a federal court in Rhode Island to order the USDA first to partially fund SNAP for November, and then to fully fund it. Having already ordered the USDA to do the former, yesterday, Judge McConnell issued a TRO ordering it to do the latter (to fully fund SNAP for November)—and to do so by the end of the day today.

Even as the President seemed to be giving inconsistent public statements about what the federal government was going to do, the Justice Department appealed Judge McConnell’s ruling to the First Circuit—and also sought a stay of that ruling pending appeal. And given the urgency of the timing, it asked the First Circuit to issue an “administrative stay”—a temporary pause while the court of appeals decided whether to issue a more indefinite stay for the duration of the government’s appeal. (For a longer explainer of the difference between an “administrative” stay and a stay pending appeal, see this post.)

With the First Circuit not having ruled on the administrative stay by late Friday afternoon, the Justice Department went to the Supreme Court for both of the types of relief it had sought from the First Circuit—a stay pending appeal and an administrative stay while the Court considered the former. Shortly after that filing, at 6:08 p.m. ET, the First Circuit publicly declined to enter an administrative stay—issuing a two-page order explaining why. As the order concluded, “The government’s motion for a stay pending appeal remains pending, and we intend to issue a decision on that motion as quickly as possible.”

That kicked the ball squarely into the Supreme Court’s … court (sorry; it’s late).

II. Why It Was Justice Jackson’s Problem

All emergency applications are filed in the first instance with the “Circuit Justice” assigned to that particular court of appeals/geographic area. For the Boston-based First Circuit, that’s Justice Jackson. And with one equivocal exception, every “administrative” stay of which I’m aware has come from the Circuit Justice, not the full Court. Thus, the onus was on Justice Jackson to either enter the administrative stay herself, or risk being overruled by the full Court.

In an order circulated to the Court’s press corps at 9:17 p.m. ET, Jackson issued the administrative stay sought by the Trump administration. But her order says a lot more than the typical administrative stay—which usually contains nothing other than boilerplate. As Jackson wrote, “Given the First Circuit’s representations, an administrative stay is required to facilitate the First Circuit’s expeditious resolution of the pending stay motion.” Thus, she stayed the two orders from Judge McConnell “pending disposition of the motion for a stay pending appeal” in the First Circuit, “or further order of Justice Jackson or of the Court.” And as the order concludes, “This administrative stay will terminate forty-eight hours after the First Circuit’s resolution of the pending motion, which the First Circuit is expected to issue with dispatch.”

The first thing to say about this order is that I’ve never seen anything quite like it before. Circuit Justices don’t usually explain administrative stays, and certainly not with this much detail about the timing. Here, Justice Jackson is clearly telling the First Circuit to hustle—a message I am sure the court of appeals will receive and act upon.

As for why Justice Jackson did it, to me, the clue is the last sentence. Had Jackson refused to issue an administrative stay, it’s entirely possible (indeed, she may already have known) that a majority of her colleagues were ready to do it themselves. I still think that this is what happened back in April when the full Court intervened shortly before 1 a.m., without explaining why Justice Alito hadn’t, in the A.A.R.P. Alien Enemies Act case. And from Jackson’s perspective, an administrative stay from the full Court would’ve been worse—almost certainly because it would have been open-ended (that is, it would not have had a deadline). The upshot would’ve been that Judge McConnell’s order could’ve remained frozen indefinitely while the full Court took its time. Yesterday’s grant of a stay in Trump v. Orr, for instance, came 48 days after the Justice Department first sought emergency relief.

Instead, by keeping the case for herself and granting the same relief, in contrast, Justice Jackson was able to directly influence the timing in both the First Circuit and the Supreme Court, at least for now. She nudged the First Circuit (which I expect to rule by the end of the weekend, Monday at the latest); and, assuming that court rules against the Trump administration, she also tied her colleagues’ hands—by having her administrative stay expire 48 hours after the First Circuit rules. Of course, the full Court can extend the administrative stay (and Jackson can do it herself). But this way, at least, she’s putting pressure on everyone—the First Circuit and the full Court—to move very quickly in deciding whether or not Judge McConnell’s orders should be allowed to go into effect. From where I’m sitting, that’s why Justice Jackson, the most vocal critic among the justices of the Court’s behavior in Trump-related emergency applications, ruled herself here—rather than allowing the full Court to overrule her. It drastically increases the odds of the full Supreme Court resolving this issue by the end of next week—one way or the other.

I am, of course, just speculating. But if so, I think it’s both a savvy move from Justice Jackson and a pretty powerful rejoinder to the increasingly noisy (and ugly) criticisms of her behavior from the right. Given the gravity of this issue, it makes all the sense in the world for a justice in Jackson’s position to do whatever she could to ensure that the underlying question (must the USDA fully fund SNAP for November?) is resolved as quickly as possible—even if that first means pausing Judge McConnell’s rulings for a couple of days. If the alternative was a longer pause of McConnell’s rulings, then this was the best-case scenario, at least for now. And regardless, imposing this compromise herself, rather than forcing her colleagues to overrule her, is, to me, a sign of a justice who takes her institutional responsibilities quite seriously, indeed—even when they lead away from the result she might otherwise have preferred if it were entirely up to her.

III. What Comes Next?

Open the link now to find out what is likely to happen to the funds that feel 42 million low-income Americans.

Joseph Stiglitz is a distinguished economist and is a Nobel laureate in economics. He has written eloquently about the benefits of increasing equality by taxing the richest people in the world.

Recently, democratic countries from the Global North and South – including Brazil, Chile, Norway, and Spain – came together at the United Nations not just to reaffirm their commitment to democracy, but to develop an agenda which would sustain and enrich it.The membership of this group, Democracia Siempre (Democracy Always), has increased enormously since it first met a year ago. The group’s growth reflects its members’ recognition that democratic backsliding is gathering pace around the world. This is particularly true in the country that has often claimed to be the oldest and strongest democracy: the United States, where there has been a sustained attack on the constitutional order lately.Both within countries and internationally, the rule of law is being trampled, leading to rampant corruption, violations of basic human rights and due process, and systematic erosion of institutions. Longstanding safeguards for our liberties and well-being are being dismantled before our eyes, with academic, press, and other freedoms under attack.In these dark times, Democracia Siempre is a ray of hope. Its members remain committed to defending democracy and the rule of law, setting an example for the timorous who have been cowed by Trump’s bullying. They have made it clear that national sovereignty and democracy are not something to be traded away. They refuse to follow the path of Esau, who sold his birthright for a mess of pottage.As an economist who has studied why we have far higher living standards and longer lives today than 250 years ago, I understand the importance of Enlightenment values and the role of science in enabling us to understand the world around us. The unprecedented material progress we have achieved in the modern age stems from our commitment to reason and freedom.Enlightenment thinkers taught us that we can design institutions to co-ordinate individual actions, facilitate co-operation, and make our societies work better. This matters, because humans are social beings. We have always been able to do far more working together than alone, and in our highly urbanised, globally integrated society, we have no choice but to co-operate. Also, among the critical institutions that we inherited from the Enlightenment are those that enable us to ascertain and assess the truth, without which neither our economy nor our democracy can function well.Democracy and the rule of law are an essential bulwark against abuses of power and are fundamental to the preservation of our human rights. History shows what happens when they are abandoned or dismantled.The UN itself was created to help ensure peace on our planet after World War II. Since we share one world, peace, stability, and common prosperity require a world body, international law, and multilateral co-operation.This summer, as Democracia Siempre’s second global meeting approached, 43 Nobel laureates from a wide variety of disciplines signed a letter of support, both for the initiative and for an agenda to achieve its goals. That agenda includes strengthening institutions, addressing income inequality, and tackling online mis- and disinformation. Critically, the signatories affirmed their commitment to reason. Their worldviews may differ, but all agree that facts cannot, and must not, be falsified. All know that it was adherence to Enlightenment values that led to their own Nobel Prize-winning discoveries.Our reasoning about the world must be based on facts, and those come from scientific research and objective news gathering. High-quality information and journalism are necessary to inform the public, promote constructive civil engagement, and preserve democracy. Freedom of expression is an internationally recognised human right. Like academic freedom, it plays an indispensable role in ensuring government accountability and preventing the kind of agglomeration of power that undermines democracy.Yet actions by governments in many countries have had a chilling effect on these freedoms. Those in power have used defamation suits and other means to silence journalists, while massive technology companies allow their platforms to amplify mis- and disinformation, polluting the information ecosystem. Generative AI threatens to make matters worse, and those training the models have been stealing information produced by the legacy media and others. As a result, they have little incentive to produce high-quality information themselves. Technologies that could improve how we disseminate and process information are instead likely to degrade our information ecosystem even further (hence Democracia Siempre’s focus on this issue).An essential feature of democracy is that everyone’s voice counts – one person, one vote. But this cannot be the case when a few multi-billionaires control what has become the global town square.Checks and balances inevitably break down in the face of yawning economic inequality, because political inequality follows, with oligarchic interests using their resources to bend rules in their favour.But addressing inequality is critical for another reason: If democracies are to function well, the body politic must exhibit at least a modicum of solidarity. Yet today’s extreme inequalities, combined with a hyper-polarising media ecosystem, have eviscerated social cohesion.For too long, many took democracy and human rights for granted. We now know that was a mistake. Sustaining and improving these institutions takes continual effort. The Democracia Siempre movement provides hope that this still can be done.The following Nobel laureates signed the letter of support for Democracia Siempre:Maria A Ressa, Nobel laureate, Peace, 2021; Klaus von Klitzing, Nobel laureate, Physics, 1985; Wole Soyinka, Nobel laureate, Literature, 1986; Óscar Arias, Nobel laureate, Peace, x1987; Elias J Corey, Nobel laureate, Chemistry, 1990; Richard J Roberts, Nobel laureate, Physiology or Medicine, 1993; José Ramos-Horta, Nobel laureate, Peace, 1996; William D Phillips, Nobel laureate, Physics, 1997; Jody Williams, Nobel laureate, Peace, 1997; Louis J Ignarro, Nobel laureate, Physiology or Medicine, 1998; Anthony J Leggett, Nobel laureate, Physics, 2003; J M Coetzee, Nobel laureate, Literature, 2003; Shirin Ebadi, Nobel laureate, Peace, 2003; Aaron Ciechanover, Nobel laureate, Chemistry, 2004; Barry J Marshall, Nobel laureate, Physiology or Medicine, 2005; John C Mather, Nobel laureate, Physics, 2006; Edmund “Ned” Phelps, Nobel laureate, Economics, 2006; Andrew Z Fire, Nobel laureate, Physiology or Medicine, 2006; Roger D. Kornberg, Nobel laureate, Chemistry, 2006; Orhan Pamuk, Nobel laureate, Literature, 2006; Eric S Maskin, Nobel laureate, Economics, 2007; Mario R Capecchi, Nobel laureate, Physiology or Medicine, 2007; Martin Chalfie, Nobel laureate, Chemistry, 2008; Jack W Szostak, Nobel laureate, Physiology or Medicine, 2009; Leymah Gbowee, Nobel laureate, Peace, 2011; Tawakkol Karman, Nobel laureate, Peace, 2011; May-Britt Moser, Nobel laureate, Physiology or Medicine, 2014; Edvard I Moser, Nobel laureate, Physiology or Medicine, 2014; Joachim Frank, Nobel laureate, Chemistry, 2017; Richard Henderson, Nobel laureate, Chemistry, 2017; Michel Mayor, Nobel laureate, Physics, 2019; Gregg L Semenza, Nobel laureate, Physiology or Medicine, 2019; Sir Peter J Ratcliffe, Nobel laureate, Physiology or Medicine, 2019; Roger Penrose, Nobel laureate, Physics, 2020; Guido W Imbens, Nobel laureate, Economics, 2021; Annie Ernaux, Nobel laureate, Literature, 2022; Narges Mohammadi, Nobel laureate, Peace, 2023; Geoffrey Hinton, Nobel laureate, Physics, 2024; Daron Acemoglu, Nobel laureate, Economics, 2024; Gary Ruvkun, Nobel laureate, Physiology or Medicine, 2024; Oleksandra Matviichuk, Center for Civil Liberties, Peace 2022; His Holiness the Dalai Lama, Nobel laureate, Peace, 1989. — Project Syndicate

• Joseph E Stiglitz, a Nobel laureate in economics, is a former chief economist of the World Bank, a former chair of the US President’s Council of Economic Advisers, University Professor at Columbia University, and the author, most recently, of The Road to Freedom: Economics and the Good Society.

President Ronald Reagan was a strong proponent of free trade and immigration. Not open borders, but a reasonable way to admit immigrants to the United States.

Trump hates to be reminded of President Reagan’s views, because they don’t agree. Trump wants to deport every immigrant who is not a U.S. citizen, and he has recklessly imposed tariffs on every other nation in the world.

Trump has disrupted the global economic order with his capricious imposition of tariffs, raising them, lowering them, on a whim. And increasing inflation for everything imported by the U.S.

The prince of Ontario in Canada posted an ad that showed President Reagan’s opposition to tariffs. Trump reacted with fury because he didn’t want the public to know that his tariffs were contrary to GOP policies, opposed specifically by Reagan, who was far more popular than Trump.

Trump insisted that the Reagan ad was phony. He raised the tariffs on Canada for daring to try to influence a pending Supreme Court decision about his power to impose tariffs without Congress.

It wasn’t a phony ad. President Reagan opposed tariffs.

Even the Wall Street Journal chastised Trump for lying about Reagan’s opposition to tariffs.

An excerpt:

The Ontario government had the temerity to buy ad time to run clips of Reagan’s 1987 remarks warning about the dangers of protectionism. Mr. Trump pitched a social-media fit in response late Thursday, claiming Ontario “fraudulently used an advertisement, which is FAKE, featuring Ronald Reagan speaking negatively about Tariffs.”

The President said the ad was intended to interfere with the Supreme Court as it considers the legality of his claim that he can levy tariffs on anything he wants, for any amount he wants, whenever he wants. He immediately declared an end to trade talks with Canada….

Mr. Trump is wrong about the Reagan speech, and he was wrong when he said on social media that “Ronald Reagan LOVED tariffs for purposes of National Security and the Economy.” The Gipper was a free trader. In the 1987 speech, Reagan was trying to explain why he was making an exception to his free-trade policies on semiconductor imports from Japan…

It’s a shame to see the Reagan Foundation, of all places, indulging Mr. Trump’s pique with its statement saying the speech was taken out of context. Anyone who reads the whole speech can see the Gipper favored free trade, with rare exceptions for political pragmatism and national security. Reagan also backed, long before Nafta, a North American free-trade area….

Reagan knew that tariffs are taxes, while Mr. Trump pretends they are paid by foreigners. Reagan knew protectionist barriers over time breed complacency and lack of innovation. Mr. Trump thinks he’s making American manufacturing great again, when he is really hurting U.S. manufacturers by burdening them with higher costs. See American companies that use aluminum or steel.

After the launch of No Child left Behind in 2002, the curriculum in America’s schools changed. The tested skills–math and reading–were tested. Federal law required a rise in test scores in grades 3-8 every year. The law required that every student would be proficient in these two subjects by 2014–or the schools would face dire consequences, including closure.

There is no nation in the world where 100% of students are “proficient.” That term on our National Assessment of Educational Progress is equivalent to an A. In what world are all children scoring an A in reading and math? La-la land maybe.

The pressure to raise test scores crept into the earlier grades, to second grade, to first grade, even to kindergarten. Children of 5 were learning their letters and numbers instead of playing.

Note that John Dewey recommended that children begin to read at age 7. Note that children in Finland begin reading at age 7.

Some educators complained about the disappearance of play, but members of Congress didn’t listen. There probably is no subject in which legislators are actively engaged than education. Most know nothing about it other than to mosn that test scores are not high enough.

But after nearly a quarter century after NCLB and Race to the Top, the message has begun to get through.

In 2019, Pasi Sahlberg and William Doyle wrote a book titled Let the Children Play, showing the positive benefits of play.

And now a few states have begun to recognize the value of play and to reintroduce it.

Elizabeth Heubeck of Education Week reported:

In recent years, some educators have begun to push back against the “academization” of kindergarten. These voices have gotten the attention of state policymakers; in turn, a few states have begun to push for a return to play in kindergarten, including Connecticut, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, and Oregon.

New Hampshire in 2018 amended its education legislation specific to kindergarten, noting that this grade level is “structured upon a play-based model.” Language for the state’s official kindergarten tool kits says: “Educators shall create a learning environment that facilitates high quality, child-directed experiences based upon early childhood best teaching practices and play-based learning that comprise movement, creative expression, exploration, socialization, and music.”

Connecticut in 2023 passed legislation requiring play-based learning in public preschool and kindergarten classrooms, and permitting it in 1st through 5th grades. Members of the Connecticut Education Association, led by CEA Vice President Joslyn Delancey, pushed for the return to play-based learning in early elementary classrooms. Delancey taught elementary school for 17 years before being elected to the association. 

“It was a commitment of mine to really understand where other educators were around play,” Delancey said. “It turns out that our members also were particularly excited about pushing play as a legislative agenda.” 

The legislation passed within a year of its introduction. Delancey credits its success to the CEA’s work to educate various stakeholders on the benefits of play-based learning, and its alignment with the state’s focus on creating and maintaining a positive school culture. 

“I think that you can’t talk about improving school climate without talking about bringing play back into our classroom,” Delancey said. 

In Massachusetts, the education department and the state association for school administrations issued a joint statement in 2021 asserting play as an instructional strategy in the early grades.

The state education department’s Early Learning Team then launched a Playful Learning Institute pilot initiative for administrators and educators in pre-K through 3rd grade. During the 2022-23 school year, the pilot involved monthly coaching in classrooms. 

Is all play created equally?

Not all play designed for today’s kindergarten classrooms looks like it did in the 1970s and ‘80s, when kids played together without much direction or input from teachers. Still, free, or unstructured, play retains an important place in the kindergarten classroom, believe some education experts. It allows children to explore, imagine, and socialize independently. But it’s generally not tied to any specific academic goals.

“I love free play, and free play has its own rights. It’s great for social development. It’s great for helping kids build their confidence,” Nesbitt said. “But it’s not going to organically, on its own, teach kids how to read.”

Instead, schools are starting to adopt play-based or playful learning, in which teachers guide students in playful activities designed to grow specific skills. For example, when students are building with blocks, the teacher could ask facilitating questions like, “What do you think will happen if you add this heavier block on top?” 

Play-based learning can boost students’ academic skills, research shows. A 2022 review of 39 studies that compared guided play to direct instruction(when a teacher delivers clearly defined, planned lessons in a prescribed manner) in children up to 8 years old found that guided play has a more significant positive impact than direct instruction on early math skills, shape knowledge, and being able to switch from one task to another.

But kindergarten isn’t just about acquiring academic skills, note education experts. Play-based learning also has the potential to help teach young learners lifelong skills.

“A lot of people are leaning heavily into the importance of play-based learning for the kinds of soft skills they can teach. I call them unconstrained skills,” Nesbitt said. “These are the skills that are not based on content-specific knowledge but rather, things like: How do we teach kids to collaborate with each other? How do we teach kids to be good communicators? How do we help them be critical and creative thinkers? How do we give them the motivation to want to be a learner?”