Irobe v. US Dept. of Agriculture
890 F.3d 371
1st Cir.2018Background
- Suuqa Bakaro Grocery (owner Mahdi Irobe), a very small Lewiston, Maine ethnic grocery, was authorized to accept SNAP benefits in June 2015; FNS later flagged unusual EBT transaction patterns and investigated.
- FNS identified over 400 suspicious SNAP transactions (high-dollar purchases, rapid paired transactions, households depleting 90%+ of benefits quickly) during July–October 2015 and issued a charge letter; FNS determined trafficking and permanently disqualified the store.
- The administrative review officer upheld the trafficking finding and permanent disqualification.
- The Store sued in district court seeking de novo review under 7 U.S.C. § 2023(a)(13); after limited discovery the USDA moved for summary judgment, which the district court granted.
- On appeal the First Circuit reviewed de novo (for summary judgment and liability) and addressed, as a question of first impression in this circuit, which party bears the burden of proof under § 2023.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Allocation of burden of proof under 7 U.S.C. § 2023 | Store: statute is silent, burden should not be imposed on challenger (implicit suggestion that agency’s evidence must be overcome) | USDA: longstanding practice and common-law presumptions place burden on the store challenging agency liability | Court: burden falls on the store; challenger must prove by preponderance that conduct was lawful |
| Sufficiency of circumstantial EBT data to prove trafficking | Store: owner testimony, receipts, and local market characteristics create genuine disputes about transaction legitimacy | USDA: comprehensive EBT transaction reports and on-site investigation data provide strong circumstantial proof of trafficking | Court: EBT data, transaction patterns, and store characteristics produced a robust circumstantial case; store failed to produce significantly probative, transaction-specific rebuttal; summary judgment for USDA affirmed |
| Standard and scope of judicial review under § 2023 | Store: sought de novo review of agency determination | USDA: de novo review applies to liability only; sanctions reviewed for abuse of discretion (Store abandoned sanction challenge) | Court: de novo review applies to liability (wider than APA); sanction review is deferential but was not pursued by Store |
| Adequacy of Store’s rebuttal evidence at summary judgment | Store: general customer-practice testimony and vendor receipts show legitimate high-dollar sales and rapid purchases | USDA: such generalized evidence is conclusory and insufficient to create a genuine dispute when faced with detailed EBT data | Court: generalized, unsupported testimony and receipts did not amount to significantly probative evidence; summary judgment appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- Schaffer ex rel. Schaffer v. Weast, 546 U.S. 49 (Sup. Ct. 2005) (presumption that claimant bears burden when statute is silent)
- Gross v. FBL Financial Services, 557 U.S. 167 (Sup. Ct. 2009) (plaintiff bears burden absent contrary congressional intent)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (Sup. Ct. 1986) (summary judgment standard; need for significantly probative evidence)
- Idias v. United States, 359 F.3d 695 (4th Cir. 2004) (circumstantial EBT/transaction data can support inference of SNAP trafficking)
- Fells v. United States, 627 F.3d 1250 (7th Cir. 2010) (burden on challenger; patterns of high-dollar redemptions probative of trafficking)
- DePoutot v. Raffaelly, 424 F.3d 112 (1st Cir. 2005) (summary judgment review standard)
- Estremera v. United States, 442 F.3d 580 (7th Cir. 2006) (de novo review applies to liability but not sanction)
- Affum v. United States, 566 F.3d 1150 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (section 2023 de novo review is broader than APA review)