HR-5223-119
Referred to the Subcommittee on Nutrition and Foreign Agriculture.
Sponsored by Steve Cohen (D-TN)
What it does
This bill would eliminate the federal statute that lets states impose a lifetime ban on Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) benefits for people convicted of drug-related felonies. It would void any state law, policy, or regulation that denies SNAP eligibility based on a controlled-substance conviction, and it would also change SNAP household definitions to include incarcerated individuals scheduled for release within 30 days, allowing them to apply for benefits before leaving prison.
Who benefits
People with prior drug convictions who are currently barred or restricted from SNAP/TANF in states that opted into the ban; formerly incarcerated individuals reentering society who would gain immediate access to food assistance upon release; reentry and anti-hunger advocacy organizations; state agencies that currently administer complex eligibility carve-outs; families of returning citizens who often share households and resources.
Who is hurt
States that have chosen to maintain the drug-conviction ban or a modified version of it would lose that policy discretion, and their welfare agencies would need to reprogram eligibility systems. Taxpayers in the SNAP and TANF programs would bear the cost of expanded caseloads, though the size of that increase is uncertain since many states have already opted out of the full ban. Critics also point to the loss of a tool some states used to condition public benefits on demonstrated compliance with drug laws.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that denying food assistance to people who have already served their sentences undermines successful reentry and increases recidivism, since access to food and stable support reduces the likelihood of reoffending. They cite research showing that most states have already opted out of the full lifetime ban because it does more harm than good, and argue that allowing SNAP applications before release helps people transition smoothly rather than facing a benefits gap that can push them toward crime or homelessness.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that eligibility conditions tied to serious drug convictions reflect a legitimate policy judgment that public benefits should encourage accountability, and that states should retain flexibility to set their own conditions under a program designed with state participation in mind. They contend that removing this tool entirely, rather than letting states calibrate it, could increase program costs and reduce incentives for compliance with drug laws, and that the federal government is overriding state judgments on an issue historically left to local control.
Constitutional context
Congress has broad authority under the Spending Clause (Art. I, §8, cl. 1) to set conditions on federally funded benefit programs like SNAP and TANF, and this bill operates within that framework by changing federal conditions rather than compelling state action, so it does not raise the anti-commandeering concerns seen in cases like Murphy v. NCAA (2018).
Checks and balances
Congress would exercise its spending power to redefine national eligibility rules, narrowing the discretion previously delegated to states to impose their own drug-conviction restrictions on SNAP.
Historical precedent
The original 1996 welfare reform law's lifetime ban has already been modified or opted out of by most states since its enactment, reflecting an ongoing legislative trend toward narrowing the restriction rather than a single directly analogous federal repeal effort.