Halal market challenges SNAP suspension amid broader federal crackdown

A halal market in West Sacramento has challenged the U.S. Department of Agriculture's decision to disqualify it from accepting food stamps, in a case that is one of several filed in recent weeks that could shape the future scope and administration of the program.

In a complaint filed Tuesday, Halal Corner Market and Restaurant LLC claimed it was hit with a six-month disqualification last month without warning and without violating any clear federal laws or regulations.

Elk Grove attorney Tawfiq J. Morrar wrote that the market properly trained and supervised employees to comply with the rules of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program before receiving a charge letter in December. According to the letter, an investigation by the department's Food and Nutrition Service uncovered violations of SNAP rules.

"The Charge Letter alleged that Halal Corner Market and Restaurant allegedly sold four different common ineligible items: stainless steel forks, petroleum jelly, Vicks inhalers, and a hot food item; and three different major ineligible items: wastebasket liners, packages of plates and a dish in exchange for SNAP benefits ('EBT') on four occasions in April 2025 to an undercover FNS investigator," Morrar wrote.

The problem, Morrar argued, is that neither common nor major "ineligible items" are defined under the federal Food and Nutrition Act or the service's own public rules and guidance. *Halal Corner Market and Restaurant LLC v. USA*, 2:26-cv-01723-TLN-JDP (E.D. Cal., filed May 5, 2026).

Morrar argued the ruling was arbitrary and capricious and should be overturned. The complaint states that Halal Corner Market serves an "impoverished community" and offers a wider selection of affordable staple foods than nearby retailers. He added that the department ignored the market's response letter, which argued that it should have received either a warning or a Hardship Civil Money Penalty instead.

"FNS is required to impose a CMP as a sanction in lieu of disqualification when doing so would 'cause hardship to SNAP households because there is no other authorized retail food store in the area selling as large a variety of staple food items at comparable prices,'" he wrote.

Morrar did not respond to a call or email seeking comment. A department spokesperson said in an email, "We can't comment on pending litigation."

The department has long enforced rules barring the use of food stamps to purchase alcohol and cigarettes. But the action against the market appears to be part of a broader enforcement wave targeting small bodegas and ethnic grocery stores in California, New York and other parts of the Northeast. A halal market in Des Moines, Wash., filed a similar complaint last month. *Madina Halal Market LLC v. United States of America*, 2:26-cv-01184-TL (E.D. Wash., filed April 8, 2026).

The disputes come amid broader legal battles over the Trump administration's efforts to change the rules governing SNAP purchases. Last year, the department began approving waivers from 22 states designed to limit or ban the use of benefits to purchase soda, candy and certain snack foods.

In March, the National Center for Law and Economic Justice challenged waivers restricting eligible food purchases in Colorado, Iowa, Nebraska, Tennessee, and West Virginia. Meegan Hollywood, a partner with Shinder Cantor Lerner LLP in New York representing the center, argued that the government, by "authorizing a patchwork of state-by-state food prohibition regimes," created a system that would be "impossible" for stores and recipients to navigate. *Aragon v. Rollins*, 1:26-cv-00861-ABJ (D. D.C., filed March 11, 2026).

"The practical effect is to destabilize food access for every SNAP participant in the affected states," Hollywood wrote. "The waivers impose ambiguous and scientifically untethered product restrictions that vary not only by state but, in some instances, by store location."

U.S. Department of Justice Trial Attorney Eitan R. Sirkovich filed a summary judgment motion disputing the claims and arguing that the plaintiffs lack standing. In an amicus brief, Nebraska Solicitor General Cody S. Barnett argued the waivers should be permitted under case law favoring "federal-state cooperation" and because the waivers comply with the department's goal of encouraging healthier food consumption.

"The Secretary's authority is broad," Barnett wrote. "She can conduct any 'experimental' project that 'might' increase efficiency or delivery of SNAP benefits, and in doing so, she can waive 'any' SNAP requirement."

Katie Deabler, a senior attorney at the National Center, said California is not among the 22 states with new restrictions. But she said the various cases reflect a broader effort by the Trump administration to undermine SNAP benefits. Those efforts include H.R. 1, the "Big Beautiful Bill," which cut $187 billion from the program over a decade, as well as the suspension of benefits during the recent government shutdown.

"We've also seen this administration really sometimes using SNAP as a weapon against state governments that they don't agree with," Deabler said. "This administration has threatened to cut SNAP funding to states that have disagreed with the administration on various issues."