Brad Brown and his business, Brothers Market LLC No. 1, appealed a district court decision that granted summary judgment to the United States government. The underlying dispute concerned the United States Department of Agriculture's decision to permanently disqualify the Market from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, commonly known as SNAP. The government alleged that the Market engaged in trafficking, which involves the illegal exchange of SNAP benefits for cash or other goods. The district court had ruled in favor of the government, and the Market appealed, arguing that the evidence was insufficient and that their due process rights were violated.
The Ninth Circuit reviewed the district court's grant of summary judgment de novo, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs. The court focused on whether the plaintiffs demonstrated a genuine dispute of material fact regarding SNAP trafficking. The record indicated that the Market conducted 1,204 unusually large transactions and 142 sets of rapid transactions made by the same household. The court reasoned that these patterns supported an inference of trafficking under established precedent. The plaintiffs attempted to rebut this evidence by offering explanations for only a small fraction of the flagged transactions. The court rejected this approach, noting that a party must provide more than a 'scintilla of evidence' to defeat summary judgment. The plaintiffs' explanations were deemed insufficiently detailed to counter the specific patterns identified by the agency. The court also addressed the plaintiffs' argument that the district court erred by inferring trafficking from transaction data without expert testimony. The panel disagreed, stating that a court, like a factfinder, may draw reasonable inferences from the evidence without needing expert interpretation. Furthermore, the court held that a conclusory, self-serving affidavit lacking detailed facts is insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact. Regarding the due process claim, the court found the argument forfeited because the plaintiffs did not assert it in their complaint or develop it beyond a few sentences in their summary judgment brief. Finally, the court affirmed the district court's decision to hold a joint hearing with a related case, finding no abuse of discretion in consolidating the matters.
The Market's permanent disqualification from the SNAP program remains in effect. The decision reinforces that statistical anomalies in transaction data can support a finding of trafficking without expert testimony, provided the data is substantial. It also serves as a warning that due process arguments must be properly raised and developed in the district court to avoid forfeiture on appeal. The ruling clarifies that conclusory affidavits are insufficient to rebut strong statistical evidence of fraud in summary judgment proceedings.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download