Former federal prosecutor Barbara McQuade delivered sharp criticism against JD Vance on Friday after the vice presidential candidate dismissed what he called an "absurd ruling" from a federal judge requiring the Trump administration to pay full November food benefits.
Legal Expert Condemns Vance's Position
Barbara McQuade, speaking during an MSNBC interview with Ana Cabrera, expressed disbelief that Vance, a law school graduate, would challenge the authority of the judicial system. "JD Vance is a law school graduate — shame on him," McQuade stated, emphasizing the fundamental principles of American jurisprudence.
The controversy stems from remarks Vance made Thursday following a federal judge's ruling that mandated full Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP) payments for November. Vance argued that the administration could only provide complete SNAP payments after Democrats "open up the government," referring to the ongoing government shutdown at the time.
Constitutional Clash Over Court Authority
"In the midst of a shutdown, we can't have a federal court telling the president how he has to triage the situation," Vance declared. "We're not going to do it under the orders of a federal judge."
McQuade countered this position by referencing the seminal 1803 case Marbury v. Madison, which established judicial review in the United States. She stressed that courts have historically held the responsibility to "tell the president what to do when he is violating the law."
The former prosecutor explained the proper legal procedure: "The president's remedy is to file an appeal and if they get a different ruling there, that's fine. But in the meantime, they are obligated to follow the court's order."
Political Motivations and Legal Consequences
McQuade highlighted the judge's finding that the administration was disrupting SNAP "for political reasons," despite available funding. She noted the judge referenced Trump's Truth Social post as evidence supporting this conclusion.
"So this idea that somehow the president doesn't have to follow the order of the court, that's what's absurd," McQuade concluded, turning Vance's characterization back on the administration's position.
Meanwhile, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which administers SNAP, had informed states it was working to comply with the judge's ruling before the Supreme Court paused the order requiring full November benefit payments.
The legal confrontation represents a significant constitutional moment testing the boundaries between executive authority and judicial oversight during government operations disputes.
