I’m pretty sure that what private businesses want to charge people is totally up to them, unless we’re talking about a protected class. Which food stamp recipients are not.
Afaik, the legal mechanism behind this threat is a pre-existing law that prohibits charging different prices for people paying with SNAP vs other forms of payment. It’s intended to prevent charging them extra, but it’s written in such a way that you can’t give discounts either.
It’s bullshit and shouldn’t exist, but it’s not entirely new.
I would say so, yes. I’m not sure a judge would say this makes sense (judges could even dismiss this based on the fact there doesn’t appear to be an injured party or they could even force the USDA to pay the difference to grocers).
Realistically grocery stores were expecting to sell a certain amount of goods to SNAP recipients and if they don’t then that food just rots. Might as well sell it at reduced cost.
I’m pretty sure that what private businesses want to charge people is totally up to them, unless we’re talking about a protected class. Which food stamp recipients are not.
Afaik, the legal mechanism behind this threat is a pre-existing law that prohibits charging different prices for people paying with SNAP vs other forms of payment. It’s intended to prevent charging them extra, but it’s written in such a way that you can’t give discounts either.
It’s bullshit and shouldn’t exist, but it’s not entirely new.
Yet… if they’re unable to pay with SNAP because the funding is cut off, wouldn’t that law be inapplicable?
I would say so, yes. I’m not sure a judge would say this makes sense (judges could even dismiss this based on the fact there doesn’t appear to be an injured party or they could even force the USDA to pay the difference to grocers).
Realistically grocery stores were expecting to sell a certain amount of goods to SNAP recipients and if they don’t then that food just rots. Might as well sell it at reduced cost.