How do states handle restitution and benefit disqualification for SNAP fraud offenders?
Executive summary
States handle restitution and benefit disqualification in two distinct ways: federal law and temporary federal funding set parameters for when states must—or may—replace SNAP benefits stolen by electronic theft, but statutory authority to replace benefits with federal funds expired Dec. 20, 2024, so benefits stolen on or after Dec. 21, 2024, are not eligible for federal replacement [1] [2]. Criminal food-stamp fraud remains prosecutable under federal law, exposing offenders to fines, jail, and restitution to reimburse the government, while states continue administrative fraud controls and reporting efforts [3] [4].
1. How replacement of stolen benefits worked — and how that changed
Congress temporarily authorized federal reimbursement for SNAP households victimized by EBT card skimming, cloning and similar electronic theft between Oct. 1, 2022 and Dec. 20, 2024; states implemented approved plans and replaced benefits for hundreds of thousands of households during that window [3] [2]. That statutory authority expired Dec. 20, 2024; federal guidance and state web pages now state that benefits stolen on or after Dec. 21, 2024, are not eligible for replacement using federal funds [1] [2] [5].
2. What states did while federal funding existed
Under the temporary federal program states submitted plans and issued replacements under USDA supervision; FNS reported states approved hundreds of thousands of claims and replaced over $150–$211 million in benefits in various agency tallies [3] [6]. States also ran public outreach about protecting EBT cards and coordinated with federal guidance on moving to more secure EBT chip cards [1] [7].
3. What happens after the federal replacement authority ended
With the American Relief Act of 2025 and other measures not extending replacement authority, FNS and many state agencies told households the federal program ended and urged phishing/EBT security precautions; several states explicitly tell residents that stolen benefits after Dec. 20, 2024, have no federal remedy [1] [8] [5]. Advocacy groups and some lawmakers are pushing Congress to reinstate replacement funding—bills such as the SNAP SECURE Act of 2025 have been introduced to restore reimbursement [9] [6].
4. Criminal prosecution, restitution and administrative sanctions
Separate from benefit-replacement policy, misuse or fraud involving SNAP can be prosecuted under federal food-stamp fraud statutes; convicted individuals can face fines, imprisonment and court-ordered restitution to reimburse the government, and courts may also order forfeiture or other penalties [4]. Available sources do not mention state-by-state variations in sentencing or diversion programs; they underline the federal criminal framework for serious fraud [4].
5. Recertification, eligibility reviews and the politics of “fraud”
USDA leadership has signaled tougher enforcement and discussed program-wide reviews, but reporting shows USDA officials backed away from requiring a new universal reapplication and said existing recertification processes would be used instead [10]. Policy debate is partisan: some officials cite “massive fraud” to justify broad action, while food-policy experts warn the statistics shared by USDA have not been fully released and may conflate payment errors with intentional fraud [10]. Reporting indicates both an enforcement push and pushback about evidence and scope [10].
6. Practical implications for recipients and states
For victims whose benefits were stolen before Dec. 21, 2024, states generally continued processing replacement claims under the federal program timelines (and some states set extended claim windows) [2] [11]. For those victimized after that date, states and USDA recommend immediate card actions (lock/replace PIN), reporting to investigators, and advocacy channels—though the federal reimbursement safety net no longer applies unless Congress acts [1] [5].
7. Competing viewpoints and policy stakes
Advocates (e.g., CBPP, some lawmakers) argue Congress should reauthorize replacement funding to protect low-income families and buy time for secure EBT rollout; lawmakers proposing bills say victims should not lose access to groceries [6] [9]. Opponents or skeptics (reflected in some political rhetoric) emphasize rooting out fraud and have called for broader program scrutiny; USDA leadership has pushed anti‑fraud framing while stopping short of publishing underlying data in the initial statements that sparked controversy [10].
Limitations and unanswered questions: available sources document the federal temporary program, its expiration, state outreach, criminal penalties and recent legislative pushes, but do not provide comprehensive, state-by-state lists of current administrative disqualification policies or details on how courts calculate restitution in each jurisdiction—those specifics are not found in current reporting [3] [4].