USDA Threatens Stores Giving Discounts to People on Food Stamps

Relevant links:

https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/ebt/retailer/retailer-notice/r...

https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/fr-022124

> Coupons shall be accepted for eligible foods at the same prices and on the same terms and conditions applicable to cash purchases of the same foods at the same store except that tax shall not be charged on eligible foods purchased with coupons.

Obviously lawyers are going to be involved in interpreting these rules. But as a lay person, I wonder: a store cannot charge a different price to someone who is buying food with a SNAP coupon. But for someone who has SNAP benefits, but isn't using a SNAP coupon to buy food (you know... because the government isn't funding the program), do these rules still apply?

> But for someone who has SNAP benefits, but isn't using a SNAP coupon to buy food (you know... because the government isn't funding the program), do these rules still apply?

The lawyer that does pro bono work for the food bank I volunteer with believes this rule doesn't apply in this case for exactly that reason. But the legal challenges will take time and the threat is effective now regardless so it barely matters.

> the threat is effective now

What is the actual threat? Assuming a grocery chain ignores the interpretation, what troubles could they face?

They could be disqualified from SNAP or fined.[1]

[1] https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-7/subtitle-B/chapter-II/s...

Banning from the EBT program, civil fines, and, potentially, criminal charges (I’m not sure you can wedge discounts for SNAP beneficiaries into any of the criminal violation categories though it seems like if you did it for cash purchases by SNAP beneficiaries as a way of trying to help deal with the suspension or reduction of SNAP benefits, it could probably be argued to be indirect trafficking—using SNAP payments to subsidize other inventory—which is criminal.)

They don't need a good legal argument to just have border patrol ransack the place and stuff a bunch of customers & employees in detention for a week. We haven't seen (afaik) this sort of vindictive not-even-pretending use of ICE/BP yet but it's right around the corner.

Lots of anti-kickback / fraud regulations don't require an immediate exchange in order for it to still be a violation, just that you are getting special treatment for having / being part of the group covered by the regulation. Walgreens will get in trouble with the feds for giving you a $10 gift card to switch your prescriptions over to them as a Medicare patient, regardless of whether or not you actually have Medicare part D or whether you actually have Walgreens fill your scripts. It's likely going to be a similar thing here.