Israel K. Negash, et al. v. United States

In 2016, a Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) retailer was accused by the United States Department of Agriculture of trafficking in SNAP benefits. The basis for such allegations were circumstantial in nature and reliant upon undisclosed statistical analyses utilizing data from undisclosed sources. Without the benefit of discovery or crossexamination, and after an informal administrative process bereft of hearings and administrative judges, the retailer attempted to defend against the allegations by filing judicial review under 7 U.S.C. §2023. Prior to the beginning of discovery or filing of an answer, the USDA filed a motion for summary judgment upon grounds that the retailer’s explanations for the questioned transactions were insufficient and unsupported. The retailer requested discovery to support such explanations, and to uncover other discrepancies within the Government’s analysis. The district court granted the motion for summary judgment on grounds that the retailer did not present a genuine issue of material fact or support its explanations. The circuit court upheld the decision. The Question Presented to this Court is: Should SNAP retailers accused of trafficking, especially through the use of circumstantial statistical analysis, be permitted to conduct discovery on judicial review under 7 U.S.C. §2023 prior to the issuance of summary judgment where: the retailer’s 56(d) declaration seeks discovery including undisclosed and untested information and data upon which the Government based its disqualification?