(a) Purpose of SNAP. SNAP is designed to promote the general welfare and to safeguard the health and well-being of the Nation's population by raising the levels of nutrition among low-income households. In keeping with section 2 of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008, the USDA established SNAP under the Act as the limited food purchasing power of low-income households contributes to hunger and malnutrition among members of such households. The increased utilization of food in establishing and maintaining adequate national levels of nutrition also promotes the distribution in a beneficial manner of the Nation's agricultural abundance and strengthens the Nation's agricultural economy, as well as result in more orderly marketing and distribution of foods. To alleviate hunger and malnutrition, SNAP permits low-income households to obtain a more nutritious diet through normal channels of trade by increasing food purchasing power for all eligible households who apply for participation. SNAP includes as a purpose to assist low-income adults in obtaining employment and increasing their earnings. Such employment and earnings, along with program benefits, permits low-income households to obtain a more nutritious diet through normal channels of trade by increasing food purchasing power for all eligible households who apply for participation.
(b) Scope of the regulations. Part 271 contains general information, definitions, and other material applicable to all parts of this subchapter. Part 272 sets forth policies and procedures governing State agencies which participate in the program. Part 273 describes the eligibility criteria to be applied by State agencies and related processing requirements and standards. Part 274 provides requirements for the issuance of SNAP benefits to eligible households and establishes related issuance responsibilities. Part 275 sets forth guidelines for monitoring SNAP, analyzing the results and formulating corrective action. Part 276 establishes State agency liability and certain Federal sanctions. Part 277 outlines procedures for payment of administrative costs of State agencies. Part 278 delineates the terms and conditions for the participation of retail food stores, wholesale food concerns, meal services, and insured financial institutions. Part 279 establishes the procedures for administrative and judicial reviews requested by food retailers, food wholesalers, and meal services. Part 280 explains procedures for issuing emergency benefit allotments to certain victims of disasters unable to purchase adequate amounts of food. Part 281 sets forth guidelines for designating Indian tribes as State agencies. Part 282 provides guidelines for initiation, selection, and operation of demonstration, research, and evaluation projects. Part 284 provides for a nutrition assistance program for the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI). Part 285 describes the general terms and conditions under which grant funds are provided to the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
[Amdt. 132, 43 FR 47882, Oct. 17, 1982, as amended by Amdt. 216, 47 FR 23461, May 28, 1982; Amdt. 248, 48 FR 16832, Apr. 19, 1983; Amdt. 356, 59 FR 29713, June 9, 1994; 85 FR 52031, Aug. 24, 2020; 89 FR 102362, Dec. 17, 2024]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
51
cases (
6 in the last 5 years), 1971–2026 · leading case:
Atkins v. Parker, 472 U.S. 115 (1985).
Atkins v. Parker, 472 U.S. 115 (1985).
· cites it 9× “" 7 CFR § 271.1 (n) (1972) (emphasis added).”
Gloria Banks v. James L. Trainor, Etc., 525 F.2d 837 (7th Cir. 1976).
· cites it 4× “In its conclusions of law, the district court held that the form Notice and accompanying card were contrary to the requirements of 7 CFR § 271.1 (n) 1 and of the due process clause.”
Irobe v. US Dept. of Agric., 890 F.3d 371 (1st Cir. 2018).
“§ 2011 ; see 7 C.F.R. § 271.1 . Authorized merchants may accept SNAP benefits in payment for certain food items.”
Aiken v. Obledo, 442 F. Supp. 628 (E.D. Cal. 1977).
· cites it 2× “7 CFR § 271.1 (j). States desiring to participate in the Program must submit a' plan of operation specifying the mannér in which the Program will be conducted within the state, 7 U.”
Dupler v. City of Portland, 421 F. Supp. 1314 (D. Me. 1976).
· cites it 2× “See also 7 CFR § 271.1 (c), infra. The Congressional purpose for inclusion of this provision in the Act appears clearly from the declaration of policy, contained in Section 2011, of seeking “to safeguard the health and well-being of the Nation’s population and raise levels of…”
Harrington v. Blum, 483 F. Supp. 1015 (S.D.N.Y. 1979).
“In fact, 7 C.F.R. § 271.1 (q)(l) (1978) provides that retroactive benefits are to be given by the State in cases of administrative errors such as erroneous denials: “[djenials include, but are not limited to, instances where a State agency has erroneously denied the application.”
Young Choi Inc. v. United States, 639 F. Supp. 2d 1169 (D. Haw. 2009).
“7 C.F.R. 271.1 2 . The ALERT program is the Anti-fraud Locator using the Electronic Benefit Transfer Retailer Transactions program.”
Peppers v. McKenna, 81 F.R.D. 361 (N.D. Ohio 1977).
· cites it 2× “7 C.F.R. § 271.1 (o) (emphasis added). It is thus clear that within 90 days in AFDC eases, and within 60 days in food stamp cases, of a request for an administrative hearing by an aggrieved recipient of aid, the state must take “prompt, definitive and final administrative action.”
Willis v. Lascaris, 499 F. Supp. 749 (N.D.N.Y. 1980).
“7 C.F.R. § 271.1 (n)(2)(i); State Manual at pp.”
— 7 C.F.R. § 271.1(c) — 1 case
Dupler v. City of Portland, 421 F. Supp. 1314 (D. Me. 1976).
“See also 7 CFR § 271.1 (c), infra. The Congressional purpose for inclusion of this provision in the Act appears clearly from the declaration of policy, contained in Section 2011, of seeking “to safeguard the health and well-being of the Nation’s population and raise levels of…”
— 7 C.F.R. § 271.1(j) — 1 case
Aiken v. Obledo, 442 F. Supp. 628 (E.D. Cal. 1977).
“7 CFR § 271.1 (j). States desiring to participate in the Program must submit a' plan of operation specifying the mannér in which the Program will be conducted within the state, 7 U.”
— 7 C.F.R. § 271.1(n) — 2 cases
— 7 C.F.R. § 271.1(n)(1) — 1 case
— 7 C.F.R. § 271.1(n)(2)(i) — 1 case
Gloria Banks v. James L. Trainor, Etc., 525 F.2d 837 (7th Cir. 1976).
“In its conclusions of law, the district court held that the form Notice and accompanying card were contrary to the requirements of 7 CFR § 271.1 (n) 1 and of the due process clause.”
— 7 C.F.R. § 271.1(n)(4)(i) — 1 case
— 7 C.F.R. § 271.1(o) — 1 case
— 7 C.F.R. § 271.1(q) — 1 case
— 7 C.F.R. § 271.1(q)(l) — 1 case
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.