Food stamps are a major source of income for the poor.
But that income has dwindled as the number of people relying on them has dropped.
The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, is an income-generating program designed to help low-income families afford food.
That’s a problem because people are losing the ability to purchase food without relying on the Supplemental Nutrition Fund (SNA), a federal program that gives low- and moderate-income people the option to purchase a certain amount of SNAP.
In some states, the SNA doesn’t exist at all, meaning that people can’t buy food without going through the SSA.
The federal government provides SNAP for nearly all Americans.
The SNAP program has been the focus of an ongoing lawsuit in the federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., in which a number of states are seeking to block the program’s expansion to include more low-wage workers.
The lawsuit argues that expanding the program to include the poor will only exacerbate poverty.
The states’ lawsuit alleges that SNAP is a program that is fundamentally inequitable, especially when it comes to food access.
The plaintiffs contend that SNAP’s current system of awarding benefits based on the amount of food a person has or the amount they can pay in a given month violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The Supreme Court has ruled in favor of states in similar cases in recent years.
The case was brought by the American Civil Liberties Union of Washington state and the National Center for Transgender Equality, among other organizations.
The ACLU argues that the Sna program is an abuse of the Equal Access Clause, arguing that it discriminates against low- or moderate-wage earners who cannot afford food on a regular basis.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has not responded to a request for comment.
The Obama administration has said it will not expand the program beyond the states, and the Trump administration has not commented on the suit.
In a statement to Fortune, USDA said that it was working to determine how to address the lawsuit and that it is “currently evaluating options for its expansion.”
The SNA, which has been in existence since the late 1940s, is funded through a combination of federal grants and federal taxes.
The current version of the SSN expired in October 2016.
Under the current law, it’s possible to use the SMA to supplement the SNAP allotment, though this has been largely unopposed by Congress.
Congress has made a number changes to the Sannas eligibility, including a requirement that states establish a minimum number of SNAP recipients for the program and an expiration date for eligibility.
The program currently is available to people who live in four states, plus the District of Columbia.
States have a choice of two options to get SNAP: 1) Get a Supplemental Nutrition Program food stamp supplement from the SAA (subsidized food) or 2) get SNAP benefits through the Supplemental Security Income program (SSI).
The first option is available in more than 50 states and the District, plus Guam, Puerto Rico, and American Samoa.
The SSA is the most popular of the four programs, with about three quarters of Americans receiving it each month.
The second option, SSI, has a different eligibility system.
SSI recipients are considered eligible if they have children, have a disability, or are disabled by mental illness.
The three other SSI programs are Supplemental Nutrition Benefits Program (SNAP), food stamps, and unemployment insurance.
The two other federal food stamps programs, SNAP and the unemployment insurance program, are not part of the lawsuit.
But the lawsuit also alleges that these two programs are being expanded without adequate oversight.
States are also able to get the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (S-SNAP) as a supplement to SNAP.
S-SN, which is available through the Federal Supplemental Nutrition Account, is available for low-to-moderate-income households in nearly all states.
The law requires that states expand the S-SNA program to cover the SNAP portion of the SNAP program.
However, the lawsuit argues the SNS program is inequitable because it does not provide for SNAP recipients who do not have children.
The USDA has said that states will have to provide an alternative to the Supplemental S-N-S program, which would cover children under age 18, if they choose to do so.