The groups argue that restrictive regulations and administrative barriers violate constitutional rights and undermine the grant’s purpose of addressing hunger and income poverty. For many people within these groups, the SRD grant has “substantially reduced poverty and hunger” and had positive economic effects, they argue. This, the groups argue, was deliberate. The groups argue it is irrational and unconstitutional, saying it was adopted to “serve the improper purpose of reducing uptake”. The groups countered this by saying while some applicants had access to social media, a significant number of applicants do not have internet access.