U.S. Department of Agriculture Food and Nutrition Service

65 Fed. Reg. 10856 (2000)

From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

U.S. Department of Agriculture Food and Nutrition Service

USDA Food and Nutrition Service
65 Fed. Reg. 10856 (2000)

Facts

In 1995, the US Department of Agriculture Food and Nutrition Service (DAFNS) published a final rule amending 7 U.S.C. § 2014(g)(5), which required state agencies to create standards for identifying “inaccessible resources,” defined as those resources that the household is unable to sell for any significant return. Such resources may be excluded from the financial-resource calculation for food-stamp eligibility determinations. The secretary of the DAFNS had further determined that the inaccessible-resource provision did not apply to vehicles. When the amended rule was challenged via prior litigation, courts deferred to the secretary’s interpretation of the statute, finding that the interpretation was reasonable while at the same time acknowledging that it was not the only possible interpretation. Because the statutory provisions conferred upon the secretary the discretion to determine whether vehicles constitute inaccessible resources, DAFNS chose in February 2000 to propose policy changes that would address some of the instances of inequity resulting from application of the interpretation. DAFNS acknowledged that to help low-income individuals achieve self-sufficiency, the vehicle-ownership policy must not be so rigid. DAFNS considered the importance of owning a vehicle while seeking or retaining employment and noted that the secretary’s strict interpretation might require an individual to choose between owning a reliable mode of transportation to work or sacrificing the vehicle to maintain food-stamp eligibility. Even vehicles of modest value owned by most low-income households could not be excluded from the financial-resource calculation under the amended rule. To combat these potentially unfair outcomes, the provisions of the proposed rule change would (1) completely exclude a vehicle from the resource test if the vehicle was necessary for producing income or transporting a disabled household member, used as a home, or fit the definition of an inaccessible resource likely to produce less than $1,000 or $1,500 after a sale, depending on the applicable household limit; (2) subject any vehicles used for employment purposes, plus one vehicle no matter the intended use, to the fair market value test only; and (3) subject any additional vehicles to a dual test, counting towards a household’s financial resources the higher of the fair market value exceeding $4,650 or the equity value.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning ()

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 815,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 815,000 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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership