Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/529bv.pdf
Page Number: 767

529US3

Unit: $U55

[09-26-01 13:01:10] PAGES PGT: OPIN

692

FISCHER v. UNITED STATES

Thomas, J., dissenting

ability to attract food stamp business and demonstrate the
business integrity and reputation of the store owners
and managers.
§§ 278.1(b)(2)–(3). Like Medicare, the Food
Stamp Program monitors the providers’ compliance with the
program’s requirements. See § 278.1(n). Like Medicare,
the Food Stamp Program sanctions noncompliance with dis-
missal from the program.
§ 278.1(l). And, the Food Stamp
Program is like Medicare in that it can be described as hav-
ing “a purpose and design above and beyond point-of-sale” of
food. Ante, at 677. Undoubtedly, the Food Stamp Program
helps to address the “grocery gap,” that is, the lack of avail-
ability of reasonably priced nutritional foods in some low-
income and rural areas. See Note, Food Stamp Trafﬁcking:
Why Small Groceries Need Judicial Protection from the De-
partment of Agriculture (And from Their Own Employees),
96 Mich. L. Rev. 2156, 2176–2177 (1998); Department of Agri-
culture, Ofﬁce of Analysis & Evaluation, Food Retailers in
the Food Stamp Program: Characteristics and Service to
Program Participants 15 (Feb. 1997) (Table 6). There is
ample evidence on the face of the statute and regulations
that Congress and the agency had in mind the need to ensure
that low-income communities have access to grocery stores.
See 7 U. S. C. § 2021(a) (1994 ed., Supp. IV) (requiring the
Secretary to consider hardship to the community in making
disqualiﬁcation determinations); 7 CFR § 278.1(b)(1)(ii)(C)
(1999) (listing availability of food stores in the community as
a factor relevant to a ﬁrm’s application to participate in the
It could be said, therefore, that the grocery
program).
store’s “own operations are one of the reasons for maintain-
ing the program.” Ante, at 681.

To my mind, the reason that a corner grocery does not
receive “beneﬁts” is simply that it merely receives payment
from the Government in a market transaction.
I fail to see,
however, how the Court could reach the same conclusion that
I would. Although the Court assures us that its holding
today is narrow and factbound, depending on the “structure,