U.S. District Judge Sharon Gleason, who is hearing a lawsuit asking the court to force the state to issue food stamps on time after years of chronic delays, heard oral arguments in Anchorage on Thursday.
Last January, 10 Alaskans sued the state, alleging that the Department of Health had not provided them with food stamps (also known as Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits) within the time frame required by federal law.
Last year, thousands of Alaskans had to wait months for federal food assistance as the state’s aid agency built up a crisis-size backlog.
The case was delayed for a year and a half as the court granted a series of stays to allow the state to work on the problem. Judge Gleason stopped granting stays in February after the state halted progress and food stamp applications backlogged.
State officials have said in recent days that they are clearing backlogged claims and paying out benefits on time, though some people are still experiencing delays, according to the plaintiffs’ latest filing.
Nick Feronti of the Northern Justice Project represented the plaintiffs and asked the court for a preliminary injunction to force the state to process food stamp applications within the deadlines set by federal law and to provide written notice to families whose food stamp payments are delayed and an opportunity for a hearing.
“We’re here seeking a preliminary injunction that will stop Alaskans from starving,” he said.
Feronti said if the court doesn’t act, Alaskans seeking food stamps will continue to suffer irreparable harm.
“If we are taking away from poor people, depriving them of the opportunity to simply put food on the table, that is damage that even handouts cannot repair in the future,” he said.
Rael Harrison, representing the Alaska Department of Health, argued that the court order ordering the state to rush is too vague to be useful, citing Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that say a preliminary injunction must describe its requirements in reasonable detail.
“The proposed order is not specific enough for the public assistance commissioner to know how to apply it and avoid the risk of being found in contempt for future actions,” she said.
Harris also said a preliminary injunction would not solve the problem of delays in processing applications, which the state is already working to resolve.
“The Assisted Living Department isn’t saying, ‘Someone else has to figure out what we need to do.’ They know what they need to do and they’re doing it. You can already see the results,” she said.
“So what does this add? Does this tell them what they need to do that they haven’t already done?”
Mr. Fallonty disputed that logic.
“If you have a state where timeliness is 20 percent or 10 percent and the state stands up and says, ‘We’re doing everything we can,’ there’s no way a federal judge is going to say, ‘Okay, everything’s fine,'” he said.
“Just because the states run out of ideas doesn’t mean that federal judges lose their power.”
Gleeson said he would look into the issue but gave no timeline for a decision.
