More Bitter Than Sweet: A Procedural Due Process Critique of Certification Periods

This Note argues that certification periods, as administered by the Food Stamp Program (recently renamed the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) violate claimants’ procedural due process rights. Currently, recipient households must recertify for renewed benefits at the end of their certification periods, which generally last a year or less. If benefits are reduced or denied during recertification—which often occurs erroneously due to mistakes either on the part of the agencies or the recipients—the recipients can request a fair hearing. But their benefits will not continue past the end of their certification periods pending a fair hearing. This Note asserts that these procedures are inconsistent with Supreme Court due process precedent, chiefly Cleveland v. Loudermill, and offers three potential solutions. First, courts should recognize that certification periods are a procedural feature of the program, and therefore are subject to due process review under Loudermill. As currently administered, certification periods would fail this review: Claimants should be granted aid pending a fair hearing under Goldberg v. Kelly. Second, as an alternate or additional solution, courts should develop a set of due process protections for public benefits applicants. Finally, under a third alternate solution, courts should accord the extent of claimants’ needs more weight at the first step of the due process analysis—in deciding whether a constitutionally protected property right exists.