## Facts

- The Food Stamp Act calculates benefits based on the cost of a thrifty food plan minus 30% of a household’s countable income, with specified statutory and regulatory income exclusions.
- New York provided a state “restaurant allowance” as a cash public-assistance payment to recipients (including homeless or disabled persons) who lacked the facilities or ability to cook at home and therefore purchased prepared food.
- The USDA Secretary ruled that the restaurant allowance must be included as household income for food stamp calculations, reducing benefits by roughly 30 cents for each dollar of allowance.
- Valerie Rodriguez and her children, living in a welfare hotel without cooking facilities, received food stamps and the restaurant allowance and were affected by the USDA determination.
- New York state and city agencies and Rodriguez sued the Secretary, seeking to enjoin enforcement of the income-inclusion policy.

## Issues

1. Whether the Secretary lawfully interpreted the Food Stamp Act and regulations to require inclusion of New York’s restaurant allowance as countable income.
2. Whether the allowance qualified for exclusion as a “reimbursement” under statutory or regulatory provisions addressing specific expense reimbursements.
3. Whether plaintiffs satisfied the Second Circuit standard for a preliminary injunction, including likelihood of success on the merits.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of a preliminary injunction.
- The court held plaintiffs had not shown a sufficient likelihood of success because the Secretary’s interpretation treating the restaurant allowance as income was reasonable and consistent with the statutory scheme.
- The Secretary’s policy remained in effect, and no injunction issued.

## Legal Principles

- Under the Food Stamp Act, “income” is broadly defined, and exclusions are limited to those specifically enumerated; courts generally will not create additional exclusions by analogy.
- A cash public-assistance payment that increases household purchasing power may be treated as countable income, even if intended to offset higher living or food costs.
- A payment characterized as a general grant, not conditioned on proof of specific expenses, need not be treated as an excludable “reimbursement” under reimbursement-related provisions.
- Courts defer to reasonable agency interpretations of the statute and implementing regulations in administering federal benefits programs.
- Preliminary injunctive relief requires irreparable harm and a sufficient merits showing; weak merits, especially in the face of reasonable agency interpretation, supports denial.

## Conclusion

The Second Circuit upheld USDA’s determination that New York’s restaurant allowance must be counted as income for food stamp purposes, emphasizing the Act’s broad income definition, the limited nature of statutory exclusions, and deference to reasonable agency administration, and therefore affirmed denial of preliminary injunctive relief.


State of New York v. Lyng, 829 F.2d 346 (2d Cir. 1987)