Sisters In Law | Episode 260: "Oh, SNAP"

Politicon | November 1, 2025
Hosted by Barb McQuade & Kimberly Atkins Stohr

Overview

This episode of #SistersInLaw, hosted by Barb McQuade and Kimberly Atkins Stohr (with Jill Wine-Banks and Joyce Vance away), dives into pressing legal and political developments, including Trump's tariff strategy at the Supreme Court, the battle over SNAP benefits during a shutdown, and the latest threats to marriage equality—particularly out of Texas. Despite half the regular team out, Barb and Kim deliver insight, plenty of sharp banter, and some memorable moments, offering listeners clarity on complex topics and a few hearty laughs along the way.

Main Topics & Key Insights

1. Halloween Candy & Witty Banter (01:47–05:42)

Lighthearted opening sharing favorite (and least favorite) Halloween candy.

• Kim: “Not reading Joyce’s book is unforgivable.” (00:30)
• Kim and Barb spar over Butterfingers (Kim: “That is chocolate covered bark. Like, what, what are you even doing?” – 04:05)
• Barb admits: “I like a good Butterfinger… I don’t know what it’s supposed to be…” (04:08)
• Fun, relatable discussion sets a lively tone for the more serious topics ahead.

2. Trump’s Tariff Gambit Heads To the Supreme Court (09:28–23:44)

Background (09:28–12:21)

• President Trump has imposed “reciprocal” tariffs since February on countries like Canada, Mexico, China, and Brazil, often justified as responses to perceived national security threats or as retaliation for various slights.
• Kim: “He’s been using it to threaten countries before he actually comes down on a number and imposes these tariffs.” (09:28)
• Barb: “He calls them reciprocal tariffs. I’m not sure they’re reciprocal to anything.” (10:45)

Legal Authority & the Constitution (12:21–13:38)

• The power to tax and impose tariffs is constitutionally granted to Congress, but Trump is invoking the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) of 1977.
• Kim: “If he declares an emergency, he has to be able to act swiftly to deal with trade policy.” (12:45)

The Plaintiffs’ Argument (13:38–15:03)

• Plaintiffs (small businesses, state attorneys general) claim:
  • Congress didn't authorize presidential tariff powers in IEEPA (“Nowhere in IEEPA is the word tariff or duties even used.” – 15:03)
  • Major constitutional issues: major questions doctrine & nondelegation doctrine.
  • Kim: “This seems like legislating from the Oval Office.” (16:05)

Major Questions Doctrine & Political Context (17:08–19:02)

• Barb points out the doctrine was only used starting in 2022, “an effort to stop anything President Biden wanted to do.” (17:24)
• Both hosts speculate whether the doctrine will be applied consistently or selectively.

Government’s Position & Court Dynamics (19:02–21:37)

• Government contends IEEPA’s language “to regulate importation” gives the president necessary latitude; Solicitor General’s brief echoes Trump rhetoric (“Either we have a country or we don’t. And without the tariffs, we don’t have a country.” – 19:42)
• Chamber of Commerce and even conservative think tanks oppose the tariffs.

Analysis & Hypotheticals (21:37–24:07)

• Barb on slippery slope potential: “Not only...will we see these tariffs remain intact, but it sends a message...that there is no limit to his power.”
• Barb’s hypothetical: Should presidential “emergency” power extend to, e.g., tariffs for Canadians booing the US anthem?
• Kim: “The goose is meeting the gander.” (18:00)
• Both are skeptical the Court will back Trump’s legal justifications, but note unpredictability.

3. SNAP (Food Stamps) Benefits and the Shutdown Lawsuits (27:41–39:10)

Situation & Lawsuit (27:41–28:45)

• With the government shutdown, federal SNAP (food stamp) benefits for 42 million people risk abrupt suspension. 25 states sue, led by Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Campbell.
• Kim: “Suspending the program for the first time in its decades long history is impermissible.” (26:55)

Arguments & Emergency Funds (28:45–31:54)

• Emergency “rainy day” funds exist for SNAP to cover crises. Trump administration claims this isn’t a qualifying emergency; states argue otherwise.
• Barb: “Our citizens are being used as political pawns in this political game.” (30:18)
• Kim notes the hypocrisy: “This is a president who has declared an emergency to levy tariffs, declared an emergency...bomb boats from Venezuela...but 42 million people perhaps not having enough food…not an emergency?” (29:38)

Rulings & Reactions (32:40–35:03)

• Judges in Massachusetts and Rhode Island rule almost simultaneously that the administration must tap contingency funds.
• Barb: “They have the money and they have to pay it. And...there’s a process to follow rather than just simply suspending all the benefits immediately.” (33:38)
• The rulings reinforce the principle of using available emergency funding for urgent, life-sustaining needs.

Role of State Attorneys General (36:47–39:10)

• Barb explains the vital, expanded role of state AGs as protectors of consumer and constitutional rights, especially as “big law” firms reduce pro bono work amid Trump’s pressure.
• Barb: “We are seeing a greater burden on small and medium sized firms and state AGs, who are really stepping up and bringing a lot of these lawsuits…and many instances with great success.” (39:10)

4. Threats to Marriage Equality: Texas Judges & Obergefell (42:59–53:52)

Texas Judicial Code Guidance (42:59–47:17)

• Texas Supreme Court updates guidance: judges may opt out of performing same-sex marriages due to sincerely held religious beliefs, based on convoluted procedural history initiated in part by a North Texas judge.
• Kim: “If somebody...a judge refuses to officiate same sex marriages only, is that actionable?” (44:07)
• Barb: “The old guidance made sense to me. The new guidance does not.” (47:17)

Potential for Wider Legal Consequences (47:41–53:52)

• Kim Davis (famous Kentucky clerk) asks SCOTUS to revisit and overturn Obergefell, the case securing same-sex marriage rights nationally; Supreme Court conference to consider taking up the case is set for November 7.
• Kim: “The scariest thing about that is there are still zombie laws in about 35 states that if Obergefell is overturned, would immediately—immediately—nullify or cause the states to stop recognizing these marriages that already exist.” (51:57)
• Both hosts warn of severe, chaotic consequences if SCOTUS undercuts established marriage rights.

Memorable Quotes & Moments

• Kim, on Trump’s emergency logic:
  “This is a president who has declared an emergency to levy tariffs...but 42 million people perhaps not having enough food…not an emergency?” (29:38)

• Barb, on presidential power:
  “...it sends a message...that there is no limit to his power...” (21:37)

• Kim on the Texas judge guidance:
  “If you wish not to perform marriages due to a sincerely held religious beliefs, you will not be sanctioned.” (45:41)

• Kim, on Kim Davis’s strategy:
  “She’s not doing this alone. She’s backed with conservative religious rights legal folks behind a lot of these challenges...” (53:51)

• Barb, on the possibility of resurrecting cases against Trump after his presidency:
  “...it seems to me that a huge part of deterring people from engaging in abuses of power is accountability. And so I’m hopeful that these cases will get resurrected and tried and let a jury decide whether he committed these crimes.” (66:22)

• Kim, on international perspective:
  “A former president of France is in jail right now. And you know what? France is fine.” (67:06)

Listener Q&A Segment Highlights (57:41–67:07)

• On the Hatch Act:
  Barb details prohibitions on federal employees’ political activity, noting the act’s civil (not criminal) enforcement and current vulnerability due to a vacant Office of Special Counsel. (58:27–61:11)

• On White House private funding and ownership:
  Kim reassures listeners the White House is still owned by the public, but raises legitimate concern about what deep-pocketed donor access means for conflicts of interest. (61:11–63:56)

• On reviving Jack Smith’s Trump indictments:
  Barb confirms dismissed charges could be refiled if Trump leaves office, but notes potential statute of limitations issues and the need for political will. (63:57–66:41)

Important Timestamps

• Introduction and Halloween banter: 00:12–05:42
• Trump tariffs overview & constitutional background: 09:28–19:02
• Major questions/nondelegation doctrines discussion: 15:03–17:58
• Supreme Court hypotheticals & analysis: 21:37–24:07
• SNAP lawsuit context & court rulings: 27:41–35:03
• State AGs' role explained: 36:47–39:10
• Texas marriage guidance & SCOTUS threats: 42:59–53:52
• Listener Q&A (Hatch Act, White House, Trump indictments): 57:41–66:41

Tone and Style

• Signature blend of sharp legal analysis, spirited political commentary, and friendly, often hilarious banter (“That is chocolate covered bark. Like, what, what are you even doing?” – Kim, 04:05).
• Sincere advocacy for procedural fairness, constitutional norms, and the rule of law.
• Optimistic, yet clear-eyed about the stakes and challenges facing democracy and marginalized communities.

Conclusion

Even operating as a duo, Barb and Kim deliver a jam-packed, insightful episode, unpacking complicated legal affairs—from the fate of Trump’s tariffs to the SNAP benefits battle and encroachments on marriage equality—with clarity, engagement, and plenty of laughs. This episode is a must-listen for anyone wanting to understand how the machinery of government impacts everyday lives—and how legal battles still shape America’s future.