USDA said two undercover buys showed SNAP benefits were used for nonfood items at the market.
DES MOINES, Wash. — A Des Moines convenience store has sued the federal government after the U.S. Department of Agriculture upheld a six-month ban from SNAP over claims workers sold hair oil and other nonfood items through the program, according to a complaint filed Wednesday in federal court.
Madina Halal Market filed the complaint April 8 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, asking a judge to review a final agency decision issued March 16 that upheld the disqualification.
The store is at 21630 Pacific Highway South in Des Moines.
According to the USDA, investigators reviewed the market’s compliance with Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) rules from May 28 through May 30, 2025, and found store workers accepted SNAP benefits for ineligible merchandise on two separate occasions.
The agency later said a six-month disqualification was appropriate.
In its lawsuit, the market said the items at issue were hair oil, food service gloves, napkins and sponges.
The complaint says hair oil is not a “major ineligible item,” and argues the store trained and supervised its employees and had no previous SNAP violations.
The USDA rejected those arguments in its final decision.
The agency said the case was supported by EBT receipts, photos and a donation certification for the purchased items.
It also said the violations involved different clerks, which it viewed as a sign of carelessness or poor supervision.
The market also argued it should have received a warning letter or a hardship civil money penalty instead of being removed from the program.
The USDA said it considered a civil money penalty but decided one was not appropriate.
In the complaint, the store says no other nearby SNAP-authorized retailer sells as wide a variety of eligible food items at comparable prices, and says no other retailer in the area carries halal staple food items.
In its decision, the agency said larger stores nearby were easily accessible and offered staple foods that were comparable to, or better than, what Madina Halal Market sold.
Madina Halal Market disagreed, saying those other stores were over a mile away and, therefore, not “easily accessible,” especially by foot.
The lawsuit asks the court to reverse the agency decision, vacate the earlier determination, block the disqualification while the case moves forward, or order the USDA to impose a hardship civil money penalty instead.
When reached for comment, a spokesperson with the USDA said, “We will not comment on pending litigation. For further information, please contact the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Public Affairs.”
To ensure diverse coverage and expert insight across a wide range of topics, our publication features contributions from multiple staff writers with varied areas of expertise.
