(a) Filing for judicial review. Except for firms disqualified from the program in accordance with § 278.6(e)(8) of this chapter, a firm aggrieved by the determination of the designated reviewer may obtain judicial review of the determination by filing a complaint against the United States in the U.S. district court for the district in which the owner resides or is engaged in business, or in any court of record of the State having competent jurisdiction. The complaint must be filed within 30 days after the date of delivery or service upon the firm of the notice of determination of the designated reviewer in accordance with § 279.5(e); otherwise the determination shall be final.
(b) Summons and complaint. Service of the summons and complaint in any such action shall be made in accordance with the rules of civil procedure for the U.S. district courts. The copy of the summons and complaint required by the rules to be served on the agency whose order is being attacked shall be sent by using any delivery method as long as the method provides evidence of delivery to the person in charge of the applicable regional office of FNS.
(c) Trial de novo. The suit in the U.S. district court or in the State court, as the case may be, shall be a trial de novo by the court in which the court shall determine the validity of the questioned administrative action. If the court determines that the administrative action is invalid, it shall enter a judgment or order which it determines is in accordance with the law and the evidence.
(d) Stay of action. During the pendency of any judicial review, or any appeal therefrom, the administrative action under review shall remain in force unless the firm makes a timely application to the court and after hearing thereon, the court stays the administrative action after a showing that irreparable injury will occur absent a stay and that the firm is likely to prevail on the merits of the case. However, permanent disqualification actions taken in accordance with § 278.6(e)(1) of this chapter shall not be subject to such a stay of administrative action. If the disqualification action is reversed through administrative or judicial review, the Secretary shall not be liable for the value of any sales lost during the disqualification period.
[Amdt. 136, 43 FR 43279, Sept. 22, 1978, as amended by Amdt. 274, 51 FR 18752, May 21, 1986; Amdt. 356, 59 FR 29714, June 9, 1994; 64 FR 23174, Apr. 30, 1999. Redesignated and amended at 68 FR 41053, July 10, 2003; Amdt. 397, 70 FR 72354, Dec. 5, 2005]
Notes of Decisions
Irobe v. US Dept. of Agric., 890 F.3d 371 (1st Cir. 2018).
“§ 2023 (a)(13), (15) ; see 7 C.F.R. § 279.7 . This de novo review is wider in scope than that available under the Administrative Procedure Act.”
Skyson USA, LLC v. United States, 651 F. Supp. 2d 1202 (D. Haw. 2009).
· cites it 6× “The USDA has construed the statute as preventing permanently disqualified retailers from seeking preliminary relief through its promulgation of 7 C.F.R. § 279.7 (d), which provides: During the pendency of any judicial review, or any appeal therefrom, the administrative action…”
Alkabsh v. United States, 733 F. Supp. 2d 929 (W.D. Tenn. 2010).
· cites it 2× “The USDA has interpreted this statute to mean that a permanently disqualified retailer may not seek preliminary relief and in support of this interpretation, specifically relies upon the USDA regulation, 7 C.F.R. § 279.7 (d), which provides: Stay of action.”
Hajifarah v. United States, 779 F. Supp. 2d 191 (D. Me. 2011).
· cites it 2× “Pursuant to the Food Stamp Act of 1964, Pub. L. No. 88-525, 78 Stat.”
Young Choi Inc. v. United States, 639 F. Supp. 2d 1169 (D. Haw. 2009).
“§ 2023 ) and 7 C.F.R. 279.7 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Plaintiff filed a timely claim on March 18, 2008, seeking judicial review of the Administrative Review’s Final Agency Decision to permanently disqualify Plaintiff from participating in the FSP.”
Dasmesh Enter.., Inc. v. United States, 501 F. Supp. 2d 1033 (W.D. Mich. 2007).
“7 C.F.R. § 279.7 (emphasis added). The Food Stamp Act and its implementing regulations expressly and unambiguously preclude judicial review of a store’s mandatory reciprocal disqualification from the Food Stamp Program triggered by the store’s disqualification from the WIC…”
Dinner Bell Markets, Inc. v. United States, 116 F. Supp. 3d 905 (S.D. Ind. 2015).
· cites it 2× “7 C.F.R. § 279.7 (d). The agency contends that its interpretation of the interrelation of § 2023(a)(17) and § 2023(a)(18) is reasonable because of the proscription in § 2023(a)(18) of “[njotwithstanding any other provision of this subsection” and the mandate that “any permanent…”
Euclid Mkt. Inc. v. United States, 60 F.4th 423 (8th Cir. 2023).
“§ 2023 (a)(13); 7 C.F.R. § 279.7 (a). B. The USDA Disqualifies Euclid Market The USDA analyzed ALERT data of Euclid Market’s SNAP transactions from April 2018 through September 2018.”
AJ Mini Mkt., Inc. v. United States, 73 F.4th 1 (1st Cir. 2023).
“§ 2023 (a)(15); 7 C.F.R. § 279.7 (c). To qualify for a monetary penalty in lieu of permanent disqualification, a store must establish by substantial evidence that it satisfies four criteria: that it has "an effective compliance policy" as outlined in 7 C.”
Gonzalez v. United States, 675 F. Supp. 2d 260 (D.R.I. 2009).
· cites it 2× “feels aggrieved by such final determination, it may obtain judicial review thereof by filing a complaint against the United States .”
— 7 C.F.R. § 279.7(a) — 1 case
— 7 C.F.R. § 279.7(c) — 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.