A federal regulation that prevented most people with drug and alcohol convictions from becoming vendors that accept food benefits has been changed after a Maryland grocer won his lawsuit with the federal government in December. Under new regulations, that prohibition will largely be limited to vendors who committed drug and alcohol offenses on their store property.
“We were delighted,” said Altimont Mark Wilks of Hagerstown when asked about his reaction to the news. It was Wilks’ lawsuit that ultimately brought about the regulation change.
“It really impacted not only our business and our lives, personally, but also our communities in Frederick and Hagerstown, because we were not able to supply affordable food and beverage to low income families who were SNAP recipients,” he said.
When Wilks re-entered society in 2018 after serving time in prison for drug trafficking and firearm possession, he saved up his money to open Carmen’s Corner Store in Hagerstown– in an area where approximately 20% of households rely on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program to help with monthly groceries. But when Wilks applied to accept SNAP at his store, he found himself permanently denied by the US Department of Agriculture, who administers SNAP, due to the Business Integrity Rule– a rule which was widely applied to prevent most people with drug and alcohol offenses from becoming SNAP vendors.
After Wilks opened a second store in Frederick, he decided to sue the USDA in hopes that he would be able to reapply to become a SNAP retailer at his Frederick store.
Not only did he win, but the permanent ban on his Hagerstown store was reversed.
The USDA did not answer additional questions about the Wilks case but provided a statement on the new rules:
“Sections 9 of the Food and Nutrition Act provides the authority to consider the business integrity and reputation of firms currently authorized or applying to become authorized to redeem Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits.
As of December 1, 2023, SNAP regulation (7 CFR 278.1(b)(3)(i)) considers trafficking, distributing, or intending to distribute controlled substances on store property an offense that reflects on the business integrity of an owner or manager of a firm.”
“The USDA’s interpretation of its Business Integrity Rule was always irrational and misguided, and we’re glad the agency has finally done what it should have years ago,” said Wilks’ attorney Jared McClain in a written statement. McClain is a lawyer with the libertarian-leaning Institute for Justice, who has represented Wilksbefore.
“Permanently punishing someone for an old mistake that has nothing to do with their business hurts people who are trying to turn their lives around and does nothing to preserve public safety,” said McClain.
The IJ argued in their lawsuit that the 2008 Business Integrity Rule was intended to target vendors who had committed consumer protection or license violations related to alcohol, tobacco, and other controlled substances rather than a blanket prohibition.
For Wilks, the lawsuit was never about him but “millions of people who have been justice impacted, formerly incarcerated” who can now become farmers, grocers, or store keepers who can “pursue a dream” and have the ability to accept government food assistance for their customers.
The victory is bittersweet.
“We've accumulated losses in revenue, and in customers over the past four years, at both locations,” said Wilks, who was engaged in his struggle with the USDA throughout the height of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Wilks has now reapplied to become a SNAP vendor and hopes that by spring he can be a fully operational vendor on the program.
