US District Judge Considers Food Stamp Delinquency Case Against Alaska Health Department

U.S. District Court Judge Sharon Gleason is considering a case asking the court to make sure the state is issuing food stamps on time after years of chronic delays. She heard oral arguments Thursday in Anchorage.

Ten Alaskans sued the state last January, alleging the health department failed to pay food stamps, also known as Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits, on dates required by federal law.

Thousands of Alaskans waited months for federal food assistance last year as the state Department of Human Services built up a backlog of crisis-sized benefits.

The case was delayed for a year and a half as the court granted the state a series of stays to allow it to work on its problems. Gleason stopped granting the stays in February after the state stopped making progress and fell back into a backlog of food stamp applications.

State officials have recently said they have worked through the backlog of applications and are issuing benefits on time. The plaintiffs’ latest filing says some people are still experiencing delays.

Nick Ferronti of the Northern Justice Project represented the plaintiffs and asked the court to issue a temporary injunction requiring the state to process food stamp applications within the time limits set by federal law, as well as to provide written notice to each household whose food stamp benefits will be delayed and provide them with an opportunity for a hearing.

“We are here for a preliminary injunction that could save Alaskans from starvation,” he said.

Ferronti said Alaskans who apply for food stamps will continue to suffer irreparable harm if the court does not take action.

“If we deprive poor people, if we deprive poor people of the opportunity to simply eat something, well, that is damage that we will not be able to repair in the future, even with back payments,” he said.

Lael Harrison, representing the Alaska Department of Health, argued that a court order telling the state to rush would be too vague to be useful. She cited the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which say a preliminary injunction must describe what is being sought in reasonable detail.

“This proposed order… is not specific enough for the Director of the Public Aid Division to know how to apply it and how to avoid the risk of contempt of court through his future actions,” she said.

Harris also said the temporary injunction would not solve the problem of application delays, which the state is already working to address.

“The Department of Public Aid doesn’t say, ‘Someone else has to figure out what we’re going to do.’ They figured out what they’re going to do. They’re doing it. You can already see the results,” she said.

“So what else does this add? What does it tell them they need to do that they’re not already doing?”

Farronti rejected this logic.

“If we were in a state where the on-time rate was 20% or 10% and the state stood up and said, ‘We’re doing everything we can,’ there’s no way a federal judge would say, ‘OK, this is OK,’” he said.

“A federal judge’s power doesn’t end just because the government runs out of ideas.”

Gleason said she would consider the matter and did not provide a timeline for a decision.