A federal judge on Monday struck down the Trump administration’s effort to bar SNAP beneficiaries from spending food-assistance dollars on soda, candy, and other sugary products, dealing a significant setback to one of the MAHA movement’s flagship nutrition goals.
U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson, appointed to the District of Columbia bench by President Barack Obama in 2011, ruled that Congress had already established the legal definition of qualifying foods under SNAP — and that the U.S. Department of Agriculture lacked the authority to alter that definition through state waiver approvals.
What the Court Decided
The ruling came in response to a lawsuit filed by SNAP recipients across five states — Colorado, Iowa, Nebraska, Tennessee, and West Virginia — the same states where the USDA had approved waivers allowing restrictions on sugary purchases. The plaintiffs were represented by the National Center for Law and Economic Justice and Shinder Cantor Lerner.
Judge Jackson’s core finding was straightforward: because Congress defined eligible food items when it wrote the law governing SNAP, the executive branch cannot redefine those categories without an act of Congress. The waivers the USDA issued to participating states, the court concluded, exceeded the agency’s statutory authority.
The ruling affects not only the five plaintiff states but has broader implications for the more than 20 states where USDA had already approved similar waiver arrangements.
Administration Pushes Back Hard
White House spokeswoman Anna Kelly made clear the administration considers the ruling a temporary obstacle rather than a final resolution. “This administration has rightfully put real food at the center of SNAP to promote healthier options for families in need,” Kelly said. “This will not be the final say on the matter.”
USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins was sharper in her response, calling the decision an act of judicial overreach. “An activist judge just blocked our commonsense restriction on using SNAP benefits for soda and junk,” Rollins said. “SNAP is for food — not sugar bombs fueling obesity, diabetes, and skyrocketing healthcare costs.”
Both statements signaled the administration intends to pursue further legal action or legislative remedies rather than accept the ruling as the end of the effort.
A Policy With a Long History
The idea of restricting SNAP purchases to exclude sugary beverages and snacks is not new. In 2011 — the same year Judge Jackson joined the bench — then-New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg submitted a formal request to the federal government seeking similar restrictions for city SNAP recipients. The Obama administration’s USDA rejected that request at the time, citing many of the same statutory concerns the court raised Monday.
The Trump administration revived the concept as a central pillar of its MAHA agenda, framing SNAP reform as a way to align federal food assistance with public health goals. Supporters argue that taxpayer-funded benefits should not subsidize products they contend contribute to chronic disease. Critics counter that restricting purchases infringes on the dignity and autonomy of low-income families and that the statutory framework simply does not permit such executive action — a view Judge Jackson’s ruling affirmed.
What Comes Next
The administration’s public statements point toward an appeal, most likely to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Congress could also theoretically act to rewrite the underlying statute and grant the USDA explicit authority to approve such waivers — a longer path but one that would resolve the constitutional questions the court raised.
For now, the waivers in all participating states are blocked, and SNAP recipients in those states may continue purchasing the items the administration sought to restrict.
From an Idaho perspective, any future resolution — whether through the courts, the USDA, or Congress — would affect how the state administers its SNAP program. The Idaho Department of Health and Welfare oversees SNAP enrollment and benefits distribution statewide, and federal court rulings on agency authority have increasingly shaped the boundaries of what state administrators can and cannot implement under federal program waivers.
CATEGORY: Food & Nutrition