On October 3, 2025, the White House published the article All 50 States Will See Devastating Economic Hit in Democrat Shutdown reminds us, yet again, that for each week the Federal government is shutdown, the US could lose $15,000,000,000 in GDP. The article goes on to explain that all 50 states will likely face job losses, reduced consumer spending, and disruptions to Federal government programs such as WIC and SNAP. They provide an interactive map of the projected economic impact by state should the Federal government remain shuttered for a month.
They estimate over 43,000 Americans will become unemployed (I'm thinking it needs to be more than that as they reduce the number of people working for the Federal government). It lists the WIC Recipients by state with California having the most at 996,000 recipients and Wyoming having the least at 8,000. As far as the SNAP program goes, they list the number of SNAP recipients by state with California having the most at 5,494,000 and Wyoming with the least at 27,000; and caution that if the shutdown continues after October 31, 2025, the SNAP program is no longer funded.
They even estimate how much consumer spending will fall by state due to furloughed workers and reduced federal contract spending with California leading the pack with an estimated $3,200,000,000 in losses and Delaware with the least at an estimated $52,000,000. In addition, they expect State GDP to decline where California again leads the pack with $2,100,000,000 in estimated state GDP losses and Vermont with the least at an estimated $24,000,000.
In my October 2, 2025 ANP Article, I discussed President Trump's Gaza Peace Plan. On October 3, 2025, Hamas replied in such a way that President Trump has concluded Hamas is ready for a lasting peace. Therefore, Israel must stop bombing in Gaza so the hostages can be retrieved safely and quickly. Then the final agreement must be officially written and agreed upon by all parties.
17 SCOTUS stays or motions to vacate of lower court orders
1 SCOTUS affirmation of lower court order
12 suits where judges ruled for the federal government
28 suits where judges ruled against the federal government
A new lawsuit New York v. Department of Justice docket # 1:25-cv-00499 was filed in District Court D Rhode Island on October 1, 2025 about Federal Grant conditioning restricting the use of grants for legal services for "immigrants". The lawsuit seeks the following relief: 1) Declare that Defendants’ imposition of any aspect of the Legal Services Condition is contrary to the Spending Clause and the Constitution; 2) Declare that Defendants’ imposition of any aspect of the Legal Services Condition is arbitrary and capricious in violation of the APA; 3) Declare that Defendants’ imposition of any aspect of the Legal Services Condition as to the VAWA and VOCA Victim Assistance programs is contrary to law in violation of the APA; 4) Stay the policy of imposing the Legal Services Condition on any grants for which it has been imposed, and stay the inclusion of the Legal Services Condition in the DOJ Guide (including as incorporated in any future version of the DOJ Guide), pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 705; 5) Preliminarily and permanently enjoin Defendants from implementing or enforcing any aspect of the Legal Services Condition, including its inclusion in the DOJ Guide, in or against the Plaintiff States; 6) Retain jurisdiction to monitor Defendants’ compliance with this Court’s judgment; 7) Award Plaintiff States their reasonable fees, costs, and expenses, including attorneys’ fees; and, 8) Award such additional relief as this Court may deem just and proper.
In the lawsuit State of New York v. Noem docket # 1:25-cv-08106 filed September 30, 2025 in District Court SD New York about Federal Grant Conditioning, the Temporary Restraining Order was Granted. The lawsuit seeks the following relief: 1) Declare that the Reallocation Decision is unlawful because it: (a) violates the APA; (b) is ultra vires; and (c) is contrary to the Constitution of the United States; 2) Set aside the Reallocation Decision; 3) Direct Defendants to obligate New York’s full 2025 TSGP targeted allocation consistent with the statutory criteria; 4) Require defendants to rescind the fiscal year 2025 award notifications to the extent required to restore New York’s full 2025 targeted allocation; 5) Enjoin DHS and FEMA from disbursing, processing, returning to the U.S. Treasury, or otherwise making unavailable by any means New York’s targeted allocation specified in the 2025 TSGP NOFO; 6) Suspend the September 30, 2025, statutory lapse of TSGP funds to the full extent necessary to permit obligation of a revised TSGP award to New York at the level of the target allocation specified in the fiscal year 2025 NOFO, including by recording as an obligation of the United States the full appropriation for the TSGP for fiscal year 2025 pursuant to 31 U.S.C. § 1501(a)(6); 7) Retain jurisdiction to monitor defendants’ compliance with this Court’s judgment; 8) Award the States their reasonable fees, costs, and expenses, including attorneys’ fees, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2412; and 9) Award such additional relief as this Court may deem just and proper. On October 1, 2025, Judge Lewis A Kaplan ordered that defendants are enjoined and restrained from 1) Obligating or 2) Disbursing, processing, returning to the US Treasury, or otherwise making unavailable to plaintiff by any means . . . This TRO shall expire at 11:59pm on October 15, 2025.
In the lawsuit Trump v. Cook docket # 25A312 filed at SCOTUS on September 18, 2025 about the Firing of FED Governor Cook (appeal of 25-5326) the stay was denied allowing Cook to remain a FED governor. Oral argument is scheduled for January 2026.
In the lawsuit United States v. Oregon docket # 6:25-cv-01666 filed September 16, 2025 in District Court D Oregon, about a challenge to State law regarding their voter list maintenance procedures the case was stayed on October 2, 2025. The lawsuit seeks the following relief: 1) Declares that Defendants have failed to make available and provide to the United States “all records concerning the implementation of programs and activities conducted for the purpose of ensuring the accuracy and currency of official lists of eligible voters, except to the extent that such records relate to a declination to register to vote or to the identity of a voter registration agency through which any particular voter is registered[,]” in violation of the NVRA, 52 U.S.C. § 20507(i); 2) Declares that Defendants’ refusal to provide the requested records concerning the State of Oregon’s voter registration and list maintenance prevents the Attorney General from enforcing its authority under HAVA, 52 U.S.C. § 21111; 3) Declares that Defendants’ refusal to provide voter registration records upon a demand by the Attorney General violates Title III of the Civil Rights Act of 1960, 52 U.S.C. § 20703; 4) Orders Defendants to provide to the United States the current electronic copy of Oregon’s computerized, statewide voter registration list, with all fields, including each registrant’s full name, date of birth, residential address, and either their state driver’s license number or the last four digits of their Social Security number as required by HAVA, 52 U.S.C. § 21083, and the CRA, 52 U.S.C. § 20703; and 5) Awards such additional relief as the interests of justice may require. On October 1, 2025, an unopposed stay was requested until the current Federal government shutdown ends. Judge Mustafa T Kasubhai granted the stay on October 2, 2025.
On October 3, 2025, in the lawsuit Noem v. National TPS Alliance, et al., docket # 25A326 filed at SCOTUS granted the application for stay in the September 5, 2025 order by US District Court for the Northern District of California, case # 25-cv-1766 pending disposition of the Government's appeal in the 9th Circuit Court (Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, & Jackson dissent) as follows:
In March of this year, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California entered a preliminary order postponing the effective date of the Secretary of Homeland Security’s decision to remove “temporary protected status” (TPS) from Venezuelan nationals living in the United States. See 8 U. S. C. §1254a; 5 U. S. C. §705. In May, this Court stayed that order while the Government appealed. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ultimately affirmed the District Court’s preliminary order. Last month, the District Court entered final judgment in respondents’ favor, holding unlawful and setting aside the Secretary’s actions effectuating her decision— namely, her vacatur of a pending extension of TPS for Venezuelan nationals, and her termination of that status itself. See 5 U. S. C. §706(2). (The District Court also concluded that the Secretary unlawfully vacated a TPS extension for Haitian nationals. The Government now seeks to stay the portions of the District Court’s judgment pertaining to Venezuela, but not Haiti. See Application 7, n. 6.)
The application for stay presented to JUSTICE KAGAN and by her referred to the Court is granted. Although the posture of the case has changed, the parties’ legal arguments and relative harms generally have not. The same result that we reached in May is appropriate here.
The September 5, 2025 order entered by the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, case No. 25–cv–1766, is stayed as to the Venezuela vacatur and Venezuela termination, pending the disposition of the Government’s appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari, if such writ is timely sought. Should the petition for a writ of certiorari be denied, this stay shall terminate automatically. In the event certiorari is granted, the stay shall terminate upon the sending down of the judgment of this Court.
Article I Section 9 [What Congress is specifically forbidden to address]
The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States [Slave Trade] now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight [1808], but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.
The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.
No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.
No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.
No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.
No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.
No Title of Nobility [discussed in my March 27, 2025 ANP Article] shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.
Article I Section 10 [Powers Denied to States]
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.
No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
Those are some of the exact words used by Google’s censors, aka 'Orwellian content police,' in describing many of our controversial stories. Stories later proven to be truthful and light years ahead of the mainstream media. But because we reported those 'inconvenient truths' they're trying to bankrupt ANP.
