7 C.F.R. § 271.4
Delegations to State agencies for administration
(a) General delegation. The State agency shall be responsible for the administration of the program within the State, including, but not limited to:
(1) Certification of applicant households;
(2) Issuance, control, and accountability of SNAP benefits and EBT cards;
(3) Developing and maintaining complaint procedures;
(4) Developing, conducting, and evaluating training;
(5) Conducting performance reporting reviews;
(6) Keeping records necessary to determine whether the program is being conducted in compliance with these regulations; and
(7) Submitting accurate and timely financial and program reports.
(b) Claims delegation. FNS delegates to the State agency, subject to the standards in § 273.18, the authority to determine the amount of, and settle, adjust, compromise or deny all or part of any claim which results from fraudulent or nonfraudulent overissuances to participating households.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 41
cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1973–2026 · leading case: Aiken v. Obledo
Aiken v. Obledo, 442 F. Supp. 628 (E.D. Cal. 1977). “7 CFR § 271.4 (a)(2)(iii). The period of time for which a household is certified is to be determined by the state agency administering the Program locally, 7 CFR § 271.”
United States Dep't of Agric. v. Murry, 413 U.S. 508 (1973). “7 CFR §§ 271.4 (a) (1) and 271.4 (a) (4) (ii).”
Atkins v. Parker, 472 U.S. 115 (1985). “" 7 CFR § 271.4 (a) (1985). [16] "Each household must be notified in a timely manner usually ten days prior to the time the agency's decision will take effect.”
Bliek v. Palmer, 916 F. Supp. 1475 (N.D. Iowa 1996). “Plaintiffs have resisted Defendants’ motion and filed their own motion for summary judgment in which they contend that the Secretary of Agriculture has delegated that office’s power of waiver to the states in 7 C.F.R. § 271.4 (b), and therefore, Defendants’ failure to notify…”
Gonzalez v. State, 207 A.3d 147 (Del. 2019). “To start, 7 C.F.R. § 271.4 (b), entitled "Claims delegation," does not delegate authority to the State to bring a fraud action under state law in addition to administrative disqualification and recoupment.”
Garnett v. Zeilinger, 301 F. Supp. 3d 199 (D.C. Cir. 2018). “§§ 2013(a), 2020(a)(1) ; 7 C.F.R. § 271.4 . If a State elects to participate, it must administer its SNAP program in accordance with the relevant statutes and the Secretary of Agriculture's regulations.”
Harrington v. Blum, 483 F. Supp. 1015 (S.D.N.Y. 1979). “7 C.F.R. § 271.4 (a)(2)(iii) (1978). Under the expedited “certification pending verification procedure” which states may choose to adopt, zero purchase households may be certified in an interview for food stamps for a thirty day period — no immediate verification of eligibility…”
Kilroy v. Mayhew, 841 F. Supp. 2d 414 (D. Me. 2012). “§ 2020 (a), (e); 7 C.F.R. §§ 271.4 (a), 272.3.) Defendant is the Commissioner of the Department.”
Morel v. Giuliani, 927 F. Supp. 622 (S.D.N.Y. 1995). “10 (a)(12), 7 C.F.R. § 271.4 , and New York State Soc.”
Miriam Rodway v. The United States Dep't of Agric., 514 F.2d 809 (D.C. Cir. 1975). “7 C.F.R. § 271.4 (1974). Typically, a household must be recertified every three months; no household may be certified for more than 12 months.”
Garnett v. Zeilinger, 313 F. Supp. 3d 147 (D.C. Cir. 2018). “§§ 2013(a), 2020(a)(1); 7 C.F.R. § 271.4 . The federal government, in turn, provides the funding for benefits and covers 50 percent of the administrative costs borne by the States.”
Brown v. Giuliani, 158 F.R.D. 251 (E.D.N.Y 1994). “10 (a)(12); 7 C.F.R. § 271.4 . Among the enforcement mechanisms available to New York State, its Department of Social Services may prescribe the number of local agency employees when the local agency is not complying with federal standards.”
— 7 C.F.R. § 271.4(a)(1) — 1 case
Tyson v. Norton, 390 F. Supp. 545 (D. Conn. 1975).
— 7 C.F.R. § 271.4(a)(2)(iii) — 1 case
Aiken v. Obledo, 480 F. Supp. 1314 (E.D. Cal. 1979).
— 7 C.F.R. § 271.4(a)(5) — 1 case
Gutierrez v. Butz, 415 F. Supp. 827 (D.D.C. 1976).
— 7 C.F.R. § 271.4(b) — 3 cases
Turner v. Chandler, 955 P.2d 1062 (Haw. App. 1998).
Vang v. Healy, 804 F. Supp. 79 (E.D. Cal. 1992).
Turner v. Rubin, 863 F. Supp. 1198 (D. Haw. 1994).
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.