## Facts

- Before 1974, the federal Food Stamp Program allowed participating states to choose which political subdivisions would operate the program.
- In 1973, Congress amended the Food Stamp Act to require a participating state agency to submit a plan to conduct the program in **every political subdivision** of the state, unless the agency could show the USDA that extension to a particular subdivision was **impossible or impracticable** and obtain approval for that limitation. See 7 U.S.C. § 2019(e).
- Oklahoma participated in the federal Food Stamp Program, but the program was not implemented in Beaver County, Oklahoma.
- Bertha Madden and other Beaver County residents who were eligible for food stamps sued the State of Oklahoma and responsible state officials in federal court, seeking an order requiring the state to implement the program in Beaver County.
- Oklahoma asserted that if relief was granted to the residents, judgment should instead run against the Beaver County Board of County Commissioners as a third-party defendant.
- Oklahoma law provided that counties (through their boards of county commissioners) must reimburse the Oklahoma Public Welfare Commission for a **prorated share** of the administrative costs of distributing food stamps.
- The district court ordered Oklahoma to implement the food-stamp program in Beaver County and ruled that Beaver County must reimburse the state for the county’s prorated share of administrative distribution costs.
- The Beaver County Board of County Commissioners appealed, arguing (1) federal law still allowed a participating state to omit particular subdivisions and (2) the county should not be required to pay the administrative costs.

## Issues

1. Whether 7 U.S.C. § 2019(e) requires a state that participates in the Food Stamp Program to operate the program in every political subdivision unless the USDA approves an exception based on a showing that extension is impossible or impracticable.
2. Whether, under Oklahoma law, Beaver County must reimburse the state welfare agency for a prorated share of the administrative costs of distributing food stamps in the county.

## Decision

- The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court.
- The court held that, once Oklahoma chose to participate in the Food Stamp Program, § 2019(e) required implementation in every political subdivision unless the Secretary of Agriculture approved an exception for a subdivision based on impossibility or impracticability.
- The court rejected Beaver County’s argument that statutory language referring to political subdivisions “in which the State desires to conduct the program” preserved broad discretion to exclude counties after the state opted into the program; that language addressed whether a state would participate, not whether it could selectively omit counties once participating.
- Because no USDA-approved exception was shown for Beaver County, Oklahoma was required to implement the program there.
- The court also upheld the district court’s ruling that Oklahoma statutes authorized requiring Beaver County to reimburse the state welfare agency for the county’s prorated share of administrative costs of food-stamp distribution.

## Legal Principles

- A state may choose whether to participate in the federal Food Stamp Program, but if it does participate, 7 U.S.C. § 2019(e) requires the program to be conducted in every political subdivision unless the USDA approves an exception for a subdivision based on a showing that extension is impossible or impracticable.
- A participating state may not exclude a county from program coverage based solely on state or local preference without obtaining USDA approval for a plan that limits coverage under the statutory exception.
- Federal food-stamp requirements do not prevent a state, consistent with its own statutes, from assigning local political subdivisions responsibility for reimbursing the state’s administrative costs of distributing food stamps.
- Under Oklahoma law, a county’s board of county commissioners can be required to reimburse the state welfare agency for a prorated share of the administrative costs associated with food-stamp distribution in that county.

## Conclusion

The Tenth Circuit held that Oklahoma, having chosen to participate in the Food Stamp Program, was required by 7 U.S.C. § 2019(e) to operate the program in Beaver County absent a USDA-approved finding that extension was impossible or impracticable, and it also upheld the ruling that Beaver County must reimburse the state welfare agency for its prorated share of administrative distribution costs under Oklahoma law.


Madden v. Oklahoma, 523 F.2d 1047 (1975)