Michigan lawmakers consider photo, signature requirements on food assistance cards to curb fraud
Michigan Capitol | Susan J. Demas
Electronic theft of benefits and unauthorized use of food assistance cards is costing Michiganders millions if not billions of dollars in fraud, supporters of legislation to require a photo and a signature on Michigan Bridge cards said during a Thursday meeting of the state House Government Operations Committee.
Rep. Jason Woolford (R-Howell), sponsor of House Bill 4515, told lawmakers Thursday that Michigan has seen instances of organized crime stealing people's Electronic Benefits Transfer, or EBT, data to drain people's SNAP, or Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, benefits which are informally known as food stamps.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
A May statement from the U.S. Department of Agriculture said SNAP benefit fraud efforts have 'dramatically' increased in recent years through card skimming and cloning efforts. And as President Donald Trump's administration has zeroed in on cracking down on bad actors stealing food assistance dollars from those who need them, Judicial Officer of the United States Department of Agriculture John Walk said these crimes hurt Americans on multiple levels.
'These are truly sick and depraved individuals who are stealing food from low-income Americans for their own profit,' Walk said in May. 'It is especially disturbing when international criminal organizations siphon tax dollars away from SNAP beneficiaries to fund their own illicit activities.'
Woolford's bill would require those using Michigan's food assistance card, known as the Bridge Card, to have their photograph and signature appear on the card.
The bill isn't meant to inconvenience anyone in need of food assistance in Michigan more than the inconvenience many Michiganders face when getting a photo for a driver's license, passport, or a Costco membership card, Woolford said. And although the nonpartisan House Fiscal Agency places estimates of implementing photo and signature requirements at between $1.5 million to $4.5 million annually, based on other states that have done so, Woolford said the change could save taxpayers billions in fraud.
'That's my concern, that the amount of money we're losing here, money that quite honestly could go to other people that are being denied benefits or that we don't have the money to take care of because of the waste, fraud and abuse,' Woolford said.
In the House Fiscal Agency's analysis of the bill, savings to Michigan as a result of reduced fraud are indeterminate and likely negligible. Regardless of whose image would appear on a card, in order for whole families to benefit from food assistance, federal rules mandate that states can't hinder members of a household from permitted purchases, so anyone with the pin number can make a purchase regardless of the image on the card, the analysis said.
On Thursday, Rep. Mike Harris (R-Waterford Township) said during his law enforcement career prior to joining the Legislature, he saw frequent fraudulent use of food assistance cards. At the same time, when considering concerns that having to get a photo taken would place an undue burden on recipients, Harris said he'd be interested in seeing if the bill could be further fleshed out to allow images already in the Michigan Department of State's database for state IDs to be used for Bridge Cards.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
Where troops in Middle East are most vulnerable to Iran strikes
Tens of thousands of U.S. troops are within Iran's striking distance should President Trump decide to wade into Israel's conflict with Tehran and directly attack the country. More than 40,000 American service members and civilians – as well as billions of dollars in military equipment – are in the Middle East, spread out across bases in Syria, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates. Those working in countries closest to Iran, including Iraq and Kuwait, would conceivably have only minutes to prepare for an incoming Iranian strike, a likely outcome should Trump order the U.S. military to join Israel's bombing campaign, experts say. 'If [Iran] had the ballistic missiles ready to go, those strikes could happen in under 15 minutes. Launched to target,' retired Col. Seth Krummrich, vice president at security consultancy firm Global Guardian, told The Hill. 'They move very quickly.' Israel last week unleashed a barrage of airstrikes on Iran that set off the largest conflict ever between the two regional adversaries, with Tehran responding with its own attacks. The war has threatened to pull in the U.S., which says it supports Israel's right to defend itself but has not directly involved itself in the bombing. Trump has not yet decided on possible American military action against Iran, telling reporters through his top spokesperson that he would make his decision within a fortnight. 'Based on the fact that there's a substantial chance of negotiation that may or may not take place with Iran in the near future, I will make my decision whether or not to go in the next two weeks,' according to the Trump statement relayed by White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt on Thursday. But Iran has already threatened to directly attack U.S. forces should they enter Israel's war campaign, with the country's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, warning on Wednesday that 'Americans should know that any U.S. military intervention will undoubtedly be accompanied by irreparable damage.' Tehran's threats aren't idle, as the country has retaliated against Washington in the past, most notably in January 2020, when Trump in his first term ordered an airstrike that killed Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani, the head of Iran's elite Quds Force. The strike, which happened as Soleimani traveled to Baghdad, prompted a swift response from Iran, which days later hammered Al Asad Air Base in Iraq and another U.S. base in Erbil with 13 ballistic missiles. While no Americans were killed in the largest ballistic missile attack ever against U.S. forces abroad, more than 100 were later diagnosed and treated for traumatic brain injuries. Now, with Trump reportedly considering using the GBU-57 – known as the Massive Ordnance Penetrator or so-called 'bunker buster' bomb – to damage Iran's Fordo nuclear enrichment facility, a similar attack from Tehran could soon be at hand. 'If there was to be a U.S. attack like they dropped the big bunker buster, if that happened, then I would assume that you would see an Iranian missile strike aimed at one or multiple U.S. bases,' said Krummrich, a former Special Forces officer in Iraq and Afghanistan. In the face of such a threat, military officials move to pull valuable assets out of the bases deemed most likely to be attacked, he said, pointing to the departure of some aircraft from Al Asad Air Base, as seen in public satellite imagery this week. He guessed that Al Asad Air Base, where many of the roughly 2,500 U.S. troops stationed in Iraq are located, as the most likely target given its close proximity to Iran and the fact that it's been hit in the past. Iran 'would tend to not want to poke the eye' of the United Arab Emirates, where 3,500 U.S. military personnel are located, or Qatar, home of Al Udeid Air Base, the largest U.S. military site in the Middle East, Krummrich predicted. About 10,000 American forces are at Al Udeid, the regional headquarters for the U.S. Central Command. In addition, 13,500 U.S. troops are stationed across five bases in Kuwait, 9,000 military and civilian personnel are at the Navy's Fifth Fleet headquarters in Manama, Bahrain, and hundreds more troops placed elsewhere on bases run by Jordan, Syria and Oman. The former head of Centcom, retired Army Gen. Joseph Votel told The Hill that Middle East bases have protective measures built into them to reduce risk, pointing to the aircraft moved from more vulnerable installations, 'But of course, we have a lot of diplomatic facilities, we have a lot of private sector interests there that could be vulnerable as well,' said Votel, now at the Middle East Institute. So, There's a lot of opportunity for Iran here.' U.S. bases and those that house American troops are also at risk of being attacked by Iran-back militias in the region, like in the case when three Army soldiers were killed in a drone attack on a small U.S. outpost in Jordan in January 2024. Following Israel's strikes on Iran on June 13, three drones were shot down near Ain al-Asad air base in western Iraq, The Associated Press reported. At least four other U.S. bases in Iraq and Syria have come under fire from Tehran-supported militants since Israel's bombing campaign began, including three installations in northeastern Syria between June 14 and 15, according to local reports. Asked about the attacks, a spokesperson from U.S. Central Command would not confirm or deny whether they took place. 'We are aware of these reports but have nothing operational to provide,' they said, pointing further queries regarding the conflict between Israel and Iran to the White House. U.S. officials this week have insisted that U.S. forces are well prepared to respond to any Iranian-launched attacks, surging more firepower to the Middle East including the USS Nimitz aircraft carrier strike group. The Pentagon also has moved refueling tanker aircraft to the nearby European theater, and placed warships in the Mediterranean Sea to help shoot down Iranian missiles targeting Israel. The Nimitz is set to take over from the USS Carl Vinson aircraft carrier, currently in the Arabian Sea to provide security for U.S. forces near the Gulf of Oman and the Persian Gulf, but the two vessels will likely overlap for several days. More covertly, the Air Force earlier this week moved a dozen F-16 fighter jets from a base in Italy to Prince Sultan, Saudi Arabia, according to Aurora Intel, which reviews open source information in the Middle East. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Wednesday declined to say whether he had been asked to provide Trump with military options for Tehran, saying during a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing that he 'wouldn't disclose that in this forum.' But he added that his job is 'to make sure the president has options, is informed of what those options might be, and what the ramifications of those options might be.' Hegseth also on Wednesday told senators that 'maximum protection' measures were in place in the region. Asked by The Hill whether the protections could adequately repel an Iranian attack, a Pentagon spokesperson referred the outlet to Hegseth's post to X on June 16, when the Defense secretary announced the 'deployment of additional capabilities' to the Middle East. 'Protecting U.S. forces is our top priority and these deployments are intended to enhance our defensive posture in the region,' he said.
Newsweek
an hour ago
- Newsweek
Justice Jackson Warns of 'Reputational Cost' to Supreme Court After Ruling
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson criticized the majority's ruling in a case over fuel providers challenging the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) approval of California's vehicle emissions regulations, writing in a Friday dissent that the decision comes at a "reputational cost" for the court, according to documents reviewed by Newsweek. She added that the decision gives "fodder" to the perception that "moneyed interests, enjoy an easier road to relief in this Court than ordinary citizens." Why It Matters In a 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court reversed the D.C. Circuit and sided with fuel producers, ruling they have Article III standing to challenge the EPA's approval of California's vehicle emissions regulations. California's regulations "require automakers to limit average greenhouse-gas emissions across their vehicle fleets and manufacture a certain percentage of electric vehicles," the lawsuit reads. Several fuel producers sued the EPA over its approval of California's regulations, arguing the agency exceeded its authority under the Clean Air Act by approving regulations that target "global climate change rather than local California air quality problems." Jackson's dissent raised concerns about public perception of favoritism and the court being swayed by powerful interests. Confidence in the Supreme Court has steadily declined for decades, with 47 percent of Americans viewing the court favorably and 51 percent unfavorably, according to a 2024 Pew Research Center survey. In 1987, 76 percent held a favorable view, while just 17 percent viewed the court unfavorably. Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson at her Senate confirmation hearing on Capitol Hill on March 22, 2022. Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson at her Senate confirmation hearing on Capitol Hill on March 22, 2022. AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster What To Know In Diamond Alternative Energy v. Environmental Protection Agency, Justice Brett Kavanaugh issued the majority opinion, joined by Justice Elena Kagan, one of the court's liberals, holding that fuel producers have standing to challenge the EPA's approval of the California regulations. In her dissent, Jackson called out the majority's application of "standing doctrine," writing that "When courts adjust standing requirements to let certain litigants challenge the actions of the political branches but preclude suits by others with similar injuries, standing doctrine cannot perform its constraining function." She argued that "Over time, such selectivity begets judicial overreach and erodes public trust in the impartiality of judicial decision making." Jackson's dissent says the court is "setting us down that path." "I worry that the fuel industry's gain comes at a reputational cost for this Court, which is already viewed by many as being overly sympathetic to corporate interests," she said later in the opinion. Jackson argues that this perception, and even a mere "'appearance' of favoritism, founded or not," can undermine public confidence in the highest court. Justice Sonia Sotomayor also dissented, filing a separate opinion and not joining Jackson's. What People Are Saying Jonathan Adler, a professor at Case Western Reserve University School of Law, told NBC on Friday: "I don't think this case is an example of the court being inconsistent or somehow more favorable to moneyed interests than other sorts of interests. It's not like the court has closed the door on environmental groups." Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote in the majority opinion: "Justice Jackson separately argues that the Court does not apply standing doctrine 'evenhandedly'...A review of standing cases over the last few years disproves that suggestion." Beth Milito, vice president of the National Federation of Independent Business' Small Business Legal Center, which filed an amicus brief in the case, said in a Friday press release: "Small businesses have the right to challenge overreach by government agencies and seek relief from harmful regulatory actions. The D.C. Circuit's opinion set an unreasonable standard for plaintiffs to prove that the court can remedy their injury. This would have made it nearly impossible for indirectly regulated parties to challenge regulating agencies. NFIB applauds the Court for reversing the lower court's opinion and ensuring that small businesses have a clear course of action and a fair chance at proving that the court can provide suitable relief." Kristen Waggoner, president and chief counsel of Alliance Defending Freedom, who filed an amicus brief in the case, said Friday on X (formerly Twitter): "The ruling in Diamond Alternative Energy v. EPA has significant implications beyond just environmental SCOTUS ruling will help plaintiffs, like these churches, hold the government accountable when its regulations have the downstream effect of violating their fundamental rights. An important win." What Happens Next The Supreme Court is expected to release a slew of opinions in the coming weeks, with the term scheduled to end in late June.
Boston Globe
an hour ago
- Boston Globe
Supreme Court allows vape companies to pick courts to hear challenges
Advertisement Liberal Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Sonia Sotomayor dissented from the opinion, which sent the case back to a lower court for more proceedings. Jackson wrote that the majority's opinion allows Reynolds to make an 'end run around … venue restrictions.' Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up The FDA had told the justices that R.J. Reynolds and other electronic cigarette manufacturers were gaming court system rules by filing the vast majority of product-denial appeals in the US Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, based in New Orleans, even though they were based in other appeals court circuits. The tactic was hindering the FDA's ability to regulate vapes that are used by hundreds of thousands of teenagers, the agency said. In the case before the justices, the 5th Circuit — widely seen as more sympathetic to the companies' arguments than other circuits — overturned the FDA's denial of an R.J. Reynolds application. Advertisement The electronic cigarette ruling was one of six decisions issued Friday, with at least a week left in the Supreme Court's term. Ten decisions remain, including cases involving the legality of age-verification laws to access online pornography and nationwide court orders blocking President Trump's ban on birthright citizenship. In addition to the vape decision, the Supreme Court on Friday revived lawsuits brought by US victims of terrorist attacks in Israel against the Palestine Liberation Organization. The opinion, written by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., upheld a 2019 federal law passed in response to attacks that allows Americans to sue. The court said that law does not violate the rights of the PLO. In a 7-2 decision, the justices also cleared the way for fuel producers to sue the Environmental Protection Agency over California's stricter standards for vehicle emissions. California's efforts are already in flux after being targeted by Trump and Republicans in Congress. Under the 2009 Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, manufacturers must get FDA approval to sell some existing products, as well as new products, that are marketed in more than one state. The Vuse line of menthol vapes are the ones in question in the R.J. Reynolds case. Ryan J. Watson, who is representing R.J. Reynolds, told the justices at oral arguments that the company was permitted to file a challenge in the 5th Circuit because the act allows 'any person adversely affected' by a denial to file a challenge in the District of Columbia Circuit or the 'circuit in which such person resides or has their principal place of business.' Advertisement R.J. Reynolds partnered with a Texas vape store and the Mississippi Petroleum Marketers and Convenience Stores Association to bring the challenge to the FDA ruling. The 5th Circuit covers Texas and Mississippi, while R.J. Reynolds is in the 4th Circuit. Vivek Suri, an assistant to the solicitor general, arguing on behalf of the government, said Congress never meant for retailers or their representatives, rather than manufacturers, to be parties to such litigation when it passed the act. He pointed out that retailers aren't notified when the FDA rejects manufacturers' applications to market vaping products and said the tactic defeats the venue restrictions laid out in the law. But the Supreme Court said Friday it has long established a broad interpretation of what it means to be adversely affected by a law, including in the category anyone even 'arguably within the zone of interests' that the statute regulates. Vape industry groups applauded the ruling. Watson, the attorney for R.J. Reynolds, said the court 'recognized that federal agency action can have downstream effects that can be devastating for parties that are not the most direct target of the agency's action.' The ruling ensures that 'the courthouse doors are not closed for those adversely affected parties,' he said. Yolonda C. Richardson, president and CEO of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, said the decision will bolster efforts to market addictive products to young people. The ruling 'gives e-cigarette manufacturers an open invitation to forum-shop for friendly courts in their relentless quest to lure and addict kids with flavored, nicotine-loaded products,' she said. In her dissent to Friday's ruling, Jackson noted that two other appeals courts had rejected similar challenges filed by other manufacturers of flavored electronic cigarettes before R.J. Reynolds filed its appeal to the 5th Circuit. Advertisement 'It thus became (perhaps) imperative from RJR Vapor's perspective that its own lawsuit challenging the FDA's denial of its flavored e-cigarette marketing applications be filed somewhere else,' Jackson wrote.
