Judge orders administration to distribute SNAP contingency money
Joe Raedle/Getty Images
(WASHINGTON) — A federal judge in Rhode Island has temporarily ordered the Trump administration to continue funding benefits for SNAP, the federally funded Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.
“The court is orally at this time, ordering that USDA must distribute the contingency money timely, or as soon as possible, for the November 1 payments to be made,” said U.S. District Judge John J. McConnell Jr.
After an hour-long emergency hearing, Judge McConnell ruled that the suspension of SNAP funding is arbitrary and likely to cause irreparable harm, citing the “terror” felt by Americans who are scrambling to meet their basic nutritional needs.
“There is no doubt, and it is beyond argument, that irreparable harm will begin to occur — if it hasn’t already occurred — in the terror it has caused some people about the availability of funding for food for their family,” he said.
The ruling came as a federal judge in Boston, in a separate case, ruled that the Trump administration’s attempt to suspend SNAP funding is “unlawful,” but declined to immediately order that the program be funded.
U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani reserved judgment about whether to issue a temporary restraining order, instead asking the Trump administration to advise the court whether they would authorize reduced SNAP benefits for November.
She ordered the Trump administration to answer her question about reduced SNAP funding by Monday.
“For the reasons stated below, Plaintiffs have standing to bring this action and are likely to succeed on their claim that Defendants’ suspension of SNAP benefits is unlawful,” she wrote.
“Where that suspension of benefits rested on an erroneous construction of the relevant statutory provisions, the court will allow Defendants to consider whether they will authorize at least reduced SNAP benefits for November, and report back to the court no later than Monday, November 3, 2025,” the judge said.
New York Attorney General Letitia James stands silently during a press conference on October 21, 2025 in New York City. Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images
(NORFOLK, Va.) — New York Attorney General Letitia James, appearing in a federal courtroom in Norfolk, Virginia, pleaded not guilty Friday to charges of alleged mortgage fraud, after she was indicted earlier this month by President Donald Trump’s handpicked U.S. attorney.
James pleaded not guilty to one count of bank fraud and one count of making false statements to a financial institution.
“Not guilty, judge, to both counts,” James said, entering the plea herself.
U.S. District Judge Jamar Walker set an initial trial date for Jan. 26, to which both the government and the defense agreed.
The trial is expected to take “no more” than two weeks, said government attorneys, who estimated they will call between 8 to 10 witnesses.
James was released on personal recognizance following the conclusion of the hearing.
Interim U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan — who Trump appointed just days after calling on the his attorney general to act “NOW!!!” to prosecute James and other political enemies — secured the indictment against James on Oct. 9. James successfully brought a civil fraud case against Trump last year and currently leads multiple lawsuits challenging his administration’s policies.
Halligan was named U.S. attorney by Trump after Trump ousted her predecessor, Erik Siebert, who sources say had expressed doubts internally about bringing cases against James and former FBI Director James Comey.
After attorneys representing James filed a motion challenging Halligan’s appointment as unlawful, Judge Walker ordered that the motion be consolidated with the already ongoing effort to disqualify her in the case against Comey, who was indicted last month on charges of making false statements to Congress, to which he has pleaded not guilty.
Both James’ attorneys and the Justice Department supported the idea of consolidating the challenges, which will be considered by an out-of-district judge already appointed this week.
James, speaking outside the courthouse following her arraignment, said the justice system under President Trump has been “used as a tool of revenge” and is nothing but a “vehicle of retribution.”
“I want to thank you for your support,” James said. “But this is not about me. Yes, this is about all of us. Yeah. And about our justice system, which has been weaponized. Against a justice system, which has been a tool been used as a tool of revenge.”
“But my faith is strong. And my faith is, I have this belief in the justice system, in the rule of law,” James said.
Judge Walker, during the hearing, briefly discussed a motion from James’ attorneys ordering Halligan to make no more extrajudicial disclosures to the media following revelations that she sent Signal messages to a reporter about James’ case earlier this week.
Judge Walker noted there was no request to sanction Halligan for the messages, and Roger Keller, the DOJ prosecutor, said that if a requirement was placed on the government to keep a log of Halligan’s discussions with the media then a similar requirement should be made of James given her statements to the media.
James’ attorney Abbe Lowell argued there was a major difference between James voicing public statements under her First Amendment rights and Halligan having discussions about a case with a reporter over an encrypted application with a deletion schedule.
Judge Walker set a deadline of Nov. 1 for James to make her first filing on her claim of vindictive prosecution.
The charges James faces accuse her of committing mortgage fraud related to a home she purchased in 2020.
According to the indictment, James falsely described the property as a second home to get an advantageous mortgage rate, but used it as an “investment property,” rented to a family of three. The indictment alleged James collected thousands of dollars in rent and would have saved $17,837 over the life of the mortgage versus a loan at a higher rate.
“No one is above the law. The charges as alleged in this case represent intentional, criminal acts and tremendous breaches of the public’s trust,” Halligan said in a statement announcing the charges. “The facts and the law in this case are clear, and we will continue following them to ensure that justice is served.”
But in an internal memo to Siebert in September, prosecutors said James purchased the home in Norfolk, Virginia, for her great-niece and immediately allowed her and her children to begin living in the house rent-free, sources told ABC News. Prosecutors met with James’ niece, who stated that she had never signed a lease, had never paid rent for the home, and that James had often sent her money to cover some of the expenses, the memo concluded, according to sources familiar with its contents.
James’ indictment on Oct. 9 came between the indictments of Comey and former Trump national security adviser John Bolton amid what critics call Trump’s campaign of retribution against his perceived political foes.
Vice President JD Vance has said any such prosecutions are “driven by law and not by politics.”
If convicted, James faces a maximum of up to 30 years in prison per count, up to a $1 million fine on each count, and forfeiture of the property.
(CHICAGO) — Supervisory Border Patrol Agent Charles Exum testified Wednesday that he had no role in the decision to release his government-issued vehicle after it was involved in a collision that led to him shooting a woman on Chicago’s southwest side last month.
“I was told to pick it up, [so] I picked it up,” Exum said, adding that he believed the vehicle had no remaining evidentiary value after it was processed and released by the FBI.
An attorney for the woman disputed Exum’s account, arguing that releasing the vehicle before defense lawyers could inspect it may have led to the destruction of potentially favorable evidence. The lawyer also confronted the agent with text messages Exum sent to friends and family in the days after the incident in which he appeared to boast about his shooting skills.
“I fired 5 rounds and she had 7 holes. Put that in your book, boys,” one of those messages said.
U.S. District Judge Georgia Alexakis ordered the testimony Wednesday in the criminal case against Marimar Martinez, who was shot by the Border Patrol agent — identified for the first time as Exum — on Oct. 4 in the Brighton Park neighborhood. The incident led to chaotic street protests and the deployment of tear gas by federal agents.
Martinez and another man, Anthony Ian Santos Ruiz, are charged with assault with a deadly weapon, accused of following the agents’ vehicles and initiating the collision with Exum’s SUV that led to the shooting. Federal prosecutors contend Exum fired five rounds defensively after Martinez allegedly drove toward him when he exited his vehicle after the crash, according to court filings.
“Moments after exiting the CBP Vehicle, the Martinez Vehicle drove northbound ” at the agent and he “proceeded to fire approximately five shots from his service weapon at the driver of the Martinez Vehicle,” prosecutors wrote in a criminal complaint last month.
Both Martinez and Ruiz have entered not guilty pleas. Martinez’s attorneys contend in court filings that it was the agents’ vehicle that initiated the collision. The government disputes that.
Wednesday’s hearing focused on a defense motion alleging that the federal government may have spoiled or altered evidence when it allowed the damaged vehicle Exum was driving to be released to him and driven back to his home base in Maine, where a Customs and Border Protection mechanic later wiped off black scuff marks after the FBI had processed the SUV in Chicago.
Exum said that after the collision, his government-issued Chevrolet Tahoe had scratches and dents on the driver’s side and black marks on the driver’s door and above the fuel tank. He said the FBI took photographs of his vehicle before it was taken from the scene to an FBI office for further evidence processing.
Prosecutors said in court filings that the FBI took additional photographs of the vehicle at an FBI facility in Chicago. The FBI also took paint chip samples from the Tahoe and downloaded data from the vehicle’s on-board computer before releasing the vehicle to Exum, according to court records.
Exum said he was contacted several hours after the shooting and told that his vehicle was ready to be picked up from an FBI office in downtown Chicago. He testified that a supervisor told him the vehicle had been processed for evidence and cleared for release. When he retrieved it, he said, the SUV appeared to be in the same condition as when it was removed from the scene.
A 23-year Border Patrol veteran stationed in Maine, Exum was on a temporary duty assignment for “Operation Midway Blitz” in Chicago. His assignment began in early September and was scheduled to end in October. He said he stayed an extra day after the incident to be interviewed by the FBI and a prosecutor.
Exum testified that he drove the vehicle back to Maine over three days, arriving at his home duty station on Oct. 10 and parking it in the facility’s garage. He said he did not see the vehicle again until about six days later, when he noticed it had been moved and that the black scuff marks from the collision had been cleaned off. He said he had no prior knowledge of the work and later learned that a supervisor had authorized a mechanic to perform it.
Prosecutors submitted to the court an email from that supervisor to Exum explaining that he had authorized the work on the vehicle to begin “because I though all the necessary pictures and evidence was [sic] taken in Chicago during the initial investigation.”
Exum said all work on the vehicle was stopped after the FBI informed him it would need to be returned to Chicago under a court order. The vehicle was transported to Chicago on a flatbed truck on Oct 23 and inspected by attorneys for Martinez a week later.
Defense attorney Chris Parente suggested during cross-examination that it was Exum, not his supervisor, who initiated the request for repairs. Parente cited an FBI interview report from Oct. 20 in which the agent wrote that Exum said he had sought approval for the work.
Exum denied that account.
“I did not say that, and I did not get approval for anything,” he testified. “He must have written it down incorrectly or misunderstood.”
Parente also confronted Exum with a series of text messages he sent in the days after the shooting — to his wife, his brother, and a group of fellow agents in a Signal chat. Prosecutors turned over screenshots of the messages to the defense earlier this week.
In one screenshot displayed in court — which included a link to a news article about the shooting — Exum wrote in a group chat: “Read it. Five shots, seven holes.” The message appeared to refer to the number of times Exum shot Martinez.
“So the ‘five shots, seven holes’ is a reference to my argument at the detention hearing that you shot Ms. Martinez five times and there were seven holes. Is that true?” Parente asked.
“I believe that is true,” Exum replied, adding: “I am a firearms instructor, and I take pride in my shooting skills.”
“So you’re bragging that you shot her five times and got seven holes? Are you literally bragging about this?” Parente asked.
“I’m just saying five shots, seven holes,” Exum answered.
In another partially redacted message to the same group, Exum wrote: “I have a MOF amendment to add to my story. I fired 5 rounds and she had 7 holes. Put that in your book, boys.” Exum said “MOF” referred to a nickname used by the group — “Miserable Old F—s.”
Exum testified that the texts to the group were sent as a way of “relieving stress.”
A separate redacted message from Oct. 5, the day after the shooting, read: “Cool. I’m up for another round of ‘f— around and find out.’”
“That means illegal actions have legal consequences,” Exum replied.
Parente pressed Exum on whether such messages were appropriate for a federal officer.
“You’re supposed to protect the lives of U.S. citizens, right?” Parente asked.
“Protect anyone’s life,” Exum replied.
“You know Ms. Martinez is a U.S. citizen, right?”
“I do know,” Exum said.
“And yet this seems like you’re in a support group bragging about the shooting,” Parente said.
“I did what I had to do to save my life,” Exum replied.
Following Exum’s testimony — which did not delve into the specific circumstances of the shooting — Judge Alexakis approved a defense request to hear from the FBI agent in Maine who took Exum’s statement, as well as the FBI agent and federal prosecutor who approved the release of his vehicle just hours after the incident.
“I want to know why an [assistant U.S. attorney] would authorize the release of a vehicle at the center of a media storm in an agent-involved shooting,” Parente said. “It doesn’t comport with my experience, so I think they both have relevant testimony.”
A date for that hearing has not yet been set.
Martinez has been indicted on charges of assaulting a federal officer with a deadly weapon. Prosecutors allege she and Ruiz followed the agents’ SUV for miles and rammed it while Exum and two others were inside.
A DHS statement on the incident emphasized that Martinez “was armed with a semi-automatic weapon and had a history of doxxing federal agents.” The government alleged that the law enforcement officers were “ambushed by domestic terrorists.” The charges against Martinez, however, made no mention of a weapon, and prosecutors have acknowledged in court that the gun was not displayed or possessed by Martinez during the confrontation. It was discovered in her purse when agents searched her vehicle later. Martinez has a license for the gun and a concealed carry permit, according to court records.
