A court has decided that the federal government cannot prevent benefits from the nation’s largest food assistance program from being used to purchase items like candy, soda, and other sugary beverages.
This decision, issued on Monday, halts current and planned restrictions for the federally funded but state-run Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) in 23 states. It remains unclear if President Donald Trump’s administration will challenge this ruling.
U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson, based in Washington and appointed by former President Barack Obama, clarified that her ruling was not an assessment of the merits of the proposed restrictions.
“The federal defendants and the states may genuinely wish to boost the health of SNAP households by promoting healthier shopping choices, and they can pursue legal means to achieve these objectives,” she stated. “However, they must adhere to the law and their own regulations in doing so.”
The restrictions are part of the Make America Healthy Again campaign
Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins and Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. have been advocating for states to restrict what SNAP benefits can buy as part of the “Make America Healthy Again” initiative.
They argue that removing soda and candy from what can be purchased with SNAP benefits could help reduce obesity, diabetes, and other chronic diseases, thereby promoting healthier eating habits.
The Agriculture Department has so far authorized 23 states to implement such restrictions. Some states have already enacted these measures, while others plan to do so in the near future.
However, Colorado reversed its decision to restrict soda and candy purchases earlier this year. After a March hearing, the state’s human services board voted against the ban, citing concerns from SNAP beneficiaries and advocates about potential stigmas and confusion over which items were restricted.
The specific rules vary by state, with some aiming to ban both sugary drinks and candy, while others focus solely on sugary beverages.
A lawsuit challenging these bans, which in some states include sports drinks, has been filed by SNAP beneficiaries in Colorado, Iowa, Nebraska, Tennessee, and West Virginia.
Judge says government ignored a definition of food
Judge Jackson highlighted that the main legal error in the restrictions was their contradiction to Congress’s definition of “food.”
According to the law, SNAP benefits, previously called food stamps, can be used for “any food or food product for home consumption except alcoholic beverages, tobacco, hot foods, or hot food products ready for immediate consumption.”
While the government can waive certain requirements, improving nutrition is not among the reasons listed for restricting benefit usage. Nonetheless, states sought to redefine “food” in their requests to the Agriculture Department for permission to impose these restrictions.
This may not be the final word
Rollins indicated on social media that the administration would continue efforts to “Make America Healthy Again,” though she did not specify if an appeal would follow. Rollins described Judge Jackson as “an activist judge” who had blocked their “commonsense restriction” on using SNAP benefits for soda and junk food.
This case is part of a broader series of challenges against Trump administration policies, questioning the administration’s ability to change policies without congressional approval.
While SNAP typically operates with little fanfare, aiding nearly 39 million Americans, it has gained attention since Trump’s return to office. A recent law signed by Trump increases work requirements for recipients and mandates states to cover a larger portion of administrative costs, potentially holding them accountable for benefit costs if their error rates are too high.
During a government shutdown last year, courts prevented the administration from cutting off benefits. Meanwhile, Rollins has claimed there is widespread fraud within the program.
— Geoff Mulvihill
