A Kentucky case has emerged where a single mother lost her federal food subsidy following the suspicions of state investigators about her grocery shopping behaviors even when she had valid reasons for the transactions involved.
The case that sparked judicial outrage
A single mother from Salyersville, Kentucky, lost her Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) in 2020 when the Kentucky Cabinet for Health and Family Services accused her of fraud for the manner in which she shopped. Officials claimed she placed continuous same-day purchases, tried overdrafts on multiple occasions, entered invalid PIN numbers, and utilized whole-dollar limits when purchasing, which they deemed not typical.
The woman explained that she had shopped at this supermarket where she had made those purchases, occasionally buying lunch during work and groceries later. Her child also occasionally used her SNAP card. While this was the explanation offered, an administrative hearing officer ruled to cut off her benefits based solely on observed suspicious shopping patterns.
When the case appeared before Franklin County Judge Thomas Wingate in 2023, he most harshly condemned the state’s action. He ruled that it was excessive to deny a single mother SNAP benefits without clear and convincing evidence of willful misconduct, considering the levels of food insecurity.
Kentucky’s aggressive prosecution of SNAP recipients
This case is only one of many recent examples of Kentucky’s increasingly hardline tactic of prosecuting individuals for supposed SNAP fraud. In recent years, the Kentucky Cabinet for Health and Family Services has used transaction data to cancel food benefits from hundreds of individuals in a process that operates largely outside of transparency and accountability.
Kentucky is the second-highest state in the nation for per-capita administrative SNAP disqualifications, trailing only Florida. Disqualifications have risen from less than 100 in 2015 to over 1,800 in 2023, an increase of over 1,700 percent. Over 300 individuals have been charged with benefit abuse since January 2024.
The problem with data-only evidence
Legal experts and judges criticized Kentucky for its over-reliance on transactional data as main proof of fraud. Transaction data alone cannot prove intent to defraud or indicate that a transaction was incorrect.
First, the transaction data were instituted as a means to raise suspicion that transactions must be investigated, and not as conclusive evidence. Training given by the state to investigators highlights transactional data pointers like back-to-back payments or purchases made in quantities of whole dollars, but none of these behaviors are prohibited by SNAP regulations. These suspicious transactions are not disclosed to the recipients either.
The human cost of flawed investigations
Families that become ensnared in Kentucky’s investigations of SNAP fraud are in for severe penalties. Those charged with trafficking benefits are hit with a one-year SNAP ban and are required to repay the entire amount which the state claims was misused. Most of these cases involve comparatively modest sums; since 2022, more than 900 people have been terminated from benefits for claimed misuse involving sums less than $1,000, with the lowest amount claimed being a mere 14 cents.
Legal activists suggest that clients often have good excuses for the suspicious transactions and no immediate evidence such as receipts or tapes. The decisions in cases often depend on simple patterns of digits found on paper.
Judicial pushback continues
Judge Wingate’s ruling wasn’t an isolated rebuff. A second Franklin County judge in 2023 directed the Cabinet to stop disqualifying based solely on transactional data, yet new lawsuits claim the health agency continues the practice.
Some state courts have set precedents, such as in Michigan, that transactional data alone is never sufficient to establish fraudulent use, a standard many would prefer Kentucky adopt.
Broader implications for food security
Kentucky’s draconian approach happens during ongoing food insecurity affecting approximately 14 percent of Kentuckians. Eight of them rely on SNAP, with rural areas particularly gutted and often denied access to legal assistance.
Legal experts note that draconian enforcement on questionable data harms vulnerable populations who rely on food assistance to avoid hunger.
Kentucky’s department of health declined interviews but indicated that they never make fraud cases solely on the basis of transactional information, although administrative hearing documents indicate otherwise. This discrepancy is a reason for concern over accountability in the administration of critical food aid programs.
Read more: Are meal delivery services like HelloFresh or Blue Apron covered by SNAP?
Read more: Does receiving unemployment benefits affect SNAP eligibility?
Read more: Can I use SNAP/EBT payments for Dollar General with DoorDash?
