Opinion ID: 852053
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Food Stamp Law

Text: On cross-appeal, the State appeals the trial court's order enjoining the FSSA from terminating, denying, or discontinuing the Food Stamp applications or benefits of the members of Class C based on an alleged `failure to cooperate' with the agency. [19] Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Summary Judgment, Appellants' App'x at 37-38. The trial court held that the State could only deny an application for Food Stamp benefits on a finding that the applicant had refused to cooperate. See id. Before the trial court, the Class C plaintiffs' only claim was that the State had improperly denied them Food Stamp benefits for failing to cooperate in the eligibility determination process because such a basis for denial is contrary to federal law. The plaintiffs made no claim that, even if failure to cooperate were a proper basis for denial, the State's failure to cooperate determination did not comply with the requirements of federal law. The State contends that federal law does not prohibit the agency from denying benefits when a client has failed to cooperate by failing to supply necessary documentation for eligibility during the time frames established in the federal regulations. Appellees' Trans. Br. at 13. [20] We agree with the State's view of the relevant Food Stamp law. Federal law states that no household shall be eligible to participate in the [Food Stamp] program if it refuses to cooperate in providing information to the State agency that is necessary for making a determination of eligibility or for completing any subsequent review of its eligibility. [21] 7 U.S.C. § 2015(c) (emphasis added). It is simply not accurate, as the plaintiffs assert, that federal law is explicit  that Food Stamp applications may only be denied where a household refuses to cooperate. Appellants' Opp'n to Trans. Br. at 11 (referring to 7 U.S.C. § 2015(c)). Section 2015(c) merely codifies the rather commonsense notion that a household is ineligible for Food Stamp benefits if it refuses to cooperate. Section 2015(c) does not attempt to comprehensively announce every basis on which a state could deny a household benefits. See id. Even so, had Congress intended to so limit the basis for denial, it could have done so easily. Congress could have said, for example, A household shall be denied benefits only if it refuses to cooperate. Instead, Section 2015(c) employs a straightforward conditional statement to exclude anyone who refuses to cooperate from eligibility for the Food Stamp program while leaving open other possible bases for disqualification. See id. The Food Stamp program's implementing regulations contemplate both refusal and failure to cooperate as a basis of denial. [22] Section 273.2(d)(1) of the Food Stamp regulations provides: If the household refuses to cooperate with the State agency in completing [the eligibility] process, the application shall be denied at the time of refusal. For a determination of refusal to be made, the household must be able to cooperate, but clearly demonstrate that it will not take actions that it can take and that are required to complete the application process. For example, to be denied for refusal to cooperate, a household must refuse to be interviewed not merely failing [sic] to appear for the interview. If there is any question as to whether the household has merely failed to cooperate, as opposed to refused to cooperate, the household shall not be denied, and the agency shall provide assistance required by paragraph (c)(5) of this section. 7 C.F.R. § 273.2(d)(1) (emphasis added). Section 273.2(d)(1) simply reaffirms the conditional language contained in Section 2015(c) of the statute and elaborates its meaning. See id. ( If the household refuses to cooperate ..., the application shall be denied at the time of the refusal. (emphasis added)). This Section merely establishes a presumption that a household should be considered as having failed to cooperate unless there is no question that the household has refused to cooperate. See id. Again, the language of the presumption is conditional. Id. ( If there is any question as to whether the household has merely failed to cooperate, as opposed to refused to cooperate, [ then ] the household shall not be denied .... (emphasis added)). As such, Section 273.2(d)(1) clearly contemplates at least two bases for the denial of benefits: refusal and failure to cooperate. The key difference between the two grounds for denial created by Section 273.2(d)(1) is that the agency must deny benefits at the time the applicant refuses to cooperate. Id. Our understanding of Section 273.2(d)(1) is guided by Section 273.2(h) which addresses delays in eligibility determinations caused by the state or the household. [23] Id. § 273.1(h). Section 273.2(h)(2)(i) provides: If by the 30th day [following the date an application is filed] the State agency cannot take any further action on the application due to the fault of the household, the household shall lose its entitlement to benefits for the month of application. Id. § 273.1(h)(2)(i) (emphasis added). A delay is considered the fault of the household if the household has failed to complete the application process even though the State agency has taken all the action it is required to take to assist the household. Id. § 273.1(h)(1)(i) (emphasis added). The State agency has the option of sending the household either a notice of denial or a notice of pending status on the 30th day. Id. § 273.1(h)(2)(i)(A) (emphasis added). Thus, where the applicant-household fail[s] to complete the application process (i.e., fails to cooperate) the state has the option of either denying the application or allowing the application to remain pending, with notice to the household accordingly. Id. This interpretation is buttressed by Section 273.10(g)(1)(ii), which expressly acknowledges the power of the state agency to elect [] to use a notice of denial when a delay [is] caused by the household's failure to take action to complete the application process [ (i.e., fails to cooperate) ]. Id. § 273.10(g)(1)(ii) (emphasis added). The interpretation urged by the plaintiffs' would ignore these provisions altogether. [24] For these reasons, we hold that federal law permits the FSSA to deny benefits to applicant's who fail to cooperate in the eligibility determination process. We therefore reverse the trial court's grant of summary judgment to the plaintiffs on this issue. [25]