Dive Brief:
- Five SNAP consumers are suing the USDA and Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins over SNAP waivers, which the USDA has approved for 22 states.
- The lawsuit, filed Wednesday in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, challenges the waivers in five states — Colorado, Iowa, Nebraska, Tennessee and West Virginia — and claims that the waivers are part of an effort by the USDA to undermine the SNAP program.
- The lawsuit alleges the USDA’s approval of the waivers violates the Administrative Procedure Act, a federal law that governs administrative law procedures, as well as exceeds the statutory authority granted under the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008.
Dive Insight:
The lawsuit alleges that the waivers, which place state-specific restrictions on which foods are eligible for SNAP benefits, have caused the plaintiffs irreparable harm and add “onerous compliance burdens on retailers.”
While state agencies have some say in how they administer SNAP, for the last 60 years, they have followed nationwide requirements, the lawsuit says, noting that consistency in how food is defined under SNAP gives clarity to consumers and retailers.
The Trump administration has said that the waivers will help SNAP consumers buy healthier foods. The USDA declined to comment on the pending litigation.
For retailers, the waivers require them to do significant upfront work to determine item eligibility, and only one state — Oklahoma — has created a list of universal product codes linked to that state’s waiver, the lawsuit claims. The five waivers challenged in the lawsuit are for states that do not require a comprehensive list of allowed products.
“[Retailers] must make their own assessment as to whether a given product is or is not allowable for SNAP under their State’s waiver … Because of the significant ambiguities in the various waiver definitions of ‘food,’ absolute compliance with the waivers will be impossible for many retailers,” the lawsuit claims.
Retailers that fulfill online orders across state lines must incorporate the state waivers into their e-commerce operations. Grocers also face the burden of training their store workers, since cashiers will need to explain to customers why an item that they try to buy is no longer SNAP eligible, the lawsuit stated.
“If a retailer denies a purchase and the recipient disagrees, there is no meaningful mechanism to challenge that determination,” according to the complaint, which notes that grocers face a “brief grace period” to comply with the restrictions.
The state waivers prohibit the plaintiffs from using SNAP benefits to purchase necessary items to manage chronic conditions and eating disorders, as well as to stay hydrated, the lawsuit claims.
The lawsuit added that the state waivers do not serve any of the four permissible statutory purposes for pilot projects that the Agriculture Secretary can approve. The suit also claims that the USDA did not follow notice-and-comment procedures and did not give SNAP recipients, retailers or other stakeholders the chance to submit comments before the department approved the waivers.
The lawsuit notes that the USDA rejected similar proposals in 2018 from Maine and Nevada to restrict SNAP purchases.
“The approval of the food restriction waivers were arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion, and were not in accordance with the law,” the lawsuit claims.
