Del. Justices Say DOJ Lawsuit Against SNAP Recipient Is Pre-empted
In a 34-page opinion, a full panel of the Delaware Department of Justice's lawsuit ran afoul of federal statute prohibiting states from launching consecutive administrative and civil actions against people who receive benefits through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP.
March 12, 2019 at 06:39 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Delaware Law Weekly
The Delaware Supreme Court on Tuesday blocked the state from pursuing a civil action seeking up to $375,000 from a woman who had bilked the federal government out of $6,100 in food benefits, ruling that the claims were pre-empted by federal law.
In a 34-page opinion, a full panel of the Delaware Department of Justice's lawsuit ran afoul of federal statute prohibiting states from launching consecutive administrative and civil actions against people who receive benefits through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP.
Writing for the court, Chief Justice Leo E. Strine Jr. said the law required states to choose between either an administrative hearing or court actions in cases of intentional program violations. The state's case, he said, had instead tried to use factual findings from an already-completed hearing to build out a civil lawsuit where the “consequences are much starker.”
“For these reasons, we hold that federal law prohibits the State from bringing a civil action against a SNAP recipient after already bringing a successful administrative action against the recipient based on the same intentional program violations,” Strine wrote.
According to court documents, the state agency responsible for implementing the SNAP program in Delaware brought an administrative proceeding in 2017, which resulted in a $6,159 against Cindy Gonzalez for lying about her income and marital status while receiving SNAP benefits.
Gonzalez, who has started repaying the sum, declined to appeal and was banned from participating in SNAP for one year. Under federal law, 35 percent of the recovered federal funds would be remitted to the state.
The DOJ later brought its own civil case against Gonzalez under the Delaware False Claims and Reporting Act for restitution, treble damages and between $5,500 and $11,000 in statutory penalties for each violation—a total that tallied between $200,000 and $375,000.
Last July, Superior Court Resident Judge Richard R. Cooch ruled that the state was entitled to judgment on the pleadings.
On appeal, however, Gonzalez and her attorneys from Community Legal Aid Society Inc. and the National Center for Law and Economic Justice, argued the decision should be reversed on the basis of federal pre-emption, saying the state lacked the legal authority to pursue a civil case on top of the administrative hearing.
Attorneys for the DOJ countered that the federal statute applied to the Department of Health and Social Services, which oversees SNAP in Delaware, but not to the DOJ, which was free to pursue court actions.
In his ruling, Strine said the DOJ's “odd argument” ran contrary to the departments own practices and would allow any other state state with no legitimate role to proceed in “any way that other entity sees fit” against a recipient who might have improperly obtained federal benefits.
“We find it improbable that Congress intended for a summary administrative disqualification hearing—which should theoretically result in only a one-year disqualification and a few thousand dollars in liability—to bind a low-income individual in a later civil action that may result in a lifetime disqualification and hundreds of thousands of dollars in liability that won't be dischargeable in bankruptcy,” Strine said.
John S. Whitelaw, who represented Gonzalez, said the “state should pursue allegations of fraud, and it did” with the administrative hearing. However, he said, the DOJ's lawsuit against his client was far disproportionate to the wrongdoing.
“It was clearly meant to send a statement, and the impact to Ms. Gonzalez would have been horrendous,” said Whitelaw, advocacy director at CLASI.
“She was and is being significantly punished,” he said. “It's not that she's trying to avoid responsibility. It's that the relief sought by the state was draconian and excessive.”
A spokesman for the DOJ declined to comment.
Gonzalez was also represented by Travis W. England of the National Center for Law and Economic Justice.
Oliver J. Cleary of the DOJ argued the appeal on behalf of the state.
Whitelaw said the suit would likely now return to the Superior Court for arguments on whether the Supreme Court's ruling was dispositive to the case.
The lawsuit is captioned State v. Gonzalez.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllJurden Announces 2025 Retirement, Capping 24 Years on Superior Court
3 minute readRare Opposition to Proposed Del. Corporate Law Changes Is Voiced to House Committee
5 minute readIn $270M National Settlement, Generic Opioid Maker Will Supply Overdose Reversal Pill, Cash
Trending Stories
- 1The Law Firm Disrupted: Playing the Talent Game to Win
- 2GlaxoSmithKline Settles Most Zantac Lawsuits for $2.2B
- 3BD Settles Thousands of Bard Hernia Mesh Lawsuits
- 4Preparing Your Law Firm for 2025: Smart Ways to Embrace AI & Other Technologies
- 5Inside Track: Late-Career In-House Leaders Offer Words to Live by
Who Got The Work
Eleanor M. Lackman of Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp has entered an appearance for Canon, the Japanese camera maker, and the Brooklyn Nets in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The case, filed Sept. 16 in California Central District Court by T-Rex Law on behalf of technology company Phinge Corporation, pursues claims against the defendants for their ongoing use of the 'Netaverse' mark. The suit contends that the defendants' use of the mark in connection with a virtual reality platform will likely create consumer confusion. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Consuelo B. Marshall, is 2:24-cv-07917, Phinge Corporation v. Yankees Entertainment and Sports Network, LLC et al.
Who Got The Work
Fox Rothschild partner Glenn S. Grindlinger has entered an appearance for Garage Management Company in a pending lawsuit over alleged wage-and-hour violations. The case was filed Aug. 31 in New York Southern District Court by the Abdul Hassan Law Group on behalf of a manual worker who contends that he was not properly compensated for overtime hours worked. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Analisa Torres, is 1:24-cv-06610, Bailey v. Garage Management Company LLC.
Who Got The Work
Veronica M. Keithley of Stoel Rives has entered an appearance for Husky Terminal and Stevedoring LLC in a pending environmental lawsuit. The suit, filed Aug. 12 in Washington Western District Court by Kampmeier & Knutsen on behalf of Communities for a Healthy Bay, seeks to declare that the defendant has violated the Clean Water Act by releasing stormwater discharges on Puget Sound and Commencement Bay. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Benjamin H. Settle, is 3:24-cv-05662, Communities for a Healthy Bay v. Husky Terminal and Stevedoring LLC.
Who Got The Work
Caroline Pignatelli of Cooley has entered an appearance for law firm Cooley, partner Matt Hallinan, retired partner Michael Tu and a pair of Cooley associates in a pending fraud lawsuit related to the firm's representation of startup company Carbon IQ and founder Benjamin Cantey. The case, filed Sept. 26 in New Jersey District Court by the DalCortivo Law Offices on behalf of Gould Ventures and member Jason Gould, contends that the defendants deliberately or recklessly concealed critical information from the plaintiffs regarding fraud allegations against Cantey. Gould claims that he would not have accepted a position on Carbon IQ's board of directors or made a 2022 investment in the company if the fraud allegations had been disclosed. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Robert Kirsch, is 3:24-cv-09485, Gould Ventures, LLC et al v. Cooley, LLP et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom have stepped in to represent PDD Holdings, the operator of online marketplaces Pinduoduo and Temu, in a pending securities class action. The case, filed Sept. 30 in New York Eastern District Court by Labaton Keller Sucharow and VanOverbeke, Michaud & Timmony, contends that the defendants concealed information that rendered the growth of PDD unsustainable and posed substantial risks to PDD’s business, including merchant policies that made it unprofitable for vendors to do business on PDD platforms; malware issues on PDD applications; and PDD’s failure to implement effective compliance systems. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Pamela K. Chen, is 1:24-cv-06881, Macomb County Retiree Health Care Fund v. Pdd Holdings Inc. et al.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250