Rodway v. U.S. Department of Agriculture
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
514 F.2d 809 (1975)
- Written by Samantha Arena, JD
Facts
The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) (defendant) implemented an allotment system for determining food-stamp eligibility that used a hypothetical family of four. The system calculated the cost of food stamps for every family of four using the average standard-family composition of two adults aged 25-35, one child aged 6-9, and one boy aged 9-12. Food-stamp-recipient households who did not receive enough support (the recipients) (plaintiffs) sued, contending that the system did not provide adequate food-stamp benefits to their families. The district court granted summary judgment for the USDA. The recipients appealed, arguing that the allotment system employing the hypothetical family of four was invalid because the system does not give all food-stamp recipients an opportunity to buy a nutritionally adequate diet as required by the Food Stamp Act (the act). The USDA conceded that the recipients received less than was necessary to cover a nutritionally adequate diet under the average standard but argued that this was because the recipients comprised unusual family compositions. The USDA argued that the allotment system using an average standard was administratively necessary for efficient program administration.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Wright, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 814,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.