WASHINGTON, June 22 - A federal judge in Washington, D.C., on Monday issued an order preventing the Trump administration from enforcing restrictions that would stop food stamp recipients in five states from using Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits to buy sugary foods and drinks.
U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson concluded that the U.S. Department of Agriculture did not have the authority under federal law to approve state requests to bar SNAP participants from purchasing items such as soda and candy. Her ruling favored five plaintiffs who had challenged the policy on the grounds that the limits would weaken their access to essential food.
The USDA had previously granted so-called "food restriction" waivers in 23 states that allow state governments to restrict the use of SNAP benefits for certain products, including sugary beverages and candy. Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins and Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. have supported the waivers as part of the administration's "Make America Healthy Again" or MAHA initiative.
SNAP, commonly referred to as the food stamp program, provides monthly benefits to 42 million low-income Americans. The program is administered by the USDA in partnership with state governments.
In explaining her decision, Judge Jackson acknowledged that federal and state officials may have legitimate goals aimed at improving dietary choices among SNAP households, but she emphasized that such goals cannot be pursued in violation of the law and agency regulations.
"The federal defendants and the states may have a genuine desire to improve the health of SNAP households by encouraging healthy choices at the store, and they can take lawful steps to meet those goals," Jackson wrote. "But what they cannot do is violate the law and their own regulations along the way."
The plaintiffs in the March lawsuit — residents of Colorado, Iowa, Nebraska, Tennessee and West Virginia — told the court that they or family members rely on the restricted items to manage medical conditions such as diabetes and allergies, or to obtain brief energy boosts needed to get through daily activities. They asked the court to block the waivers in their respective states.
Katharine Deabler-Meadows, an attorney representing the plaintiffs at the National Center for Law and Economic Justice, said the decision restores vital food assistance for the millions who depend on SNAP.
"The court’s ruling is a major step in restoring essential food assistance to the millions of families that rely on SNAP nationwide," Deabler-Meadows said.
In her written opinion, Judge Jackson specified that the USDA may approve waivers only for purposes explicitly authorized by federal law, such as measures designed to improve the efficiency of the SNAP program. She stated that improving the health and diet of SNAP recipients is not among the permissible purposes for which waivers may be granted.
"Improving the health and diet of SNAP recipients is not included," Jackson said.
The USDA defended the policy in a statement and indicated it intends to press forward with efforts to limit the purchase of certain foods with SNAP benefits.
"The idea that taxpayer funds should not be used to purchase junk food should not be controversial," a USDA spokesperson said. "USDA will not be backing down from the fight to Make America Healthy Again, including for families and communities reliant on SNAP."
The court order stops enforcement of the restrictions in the five states that were subject to the plaintiffs' challenge. The ruling clarifies the legal boundary for the USDA's waiver authority and underscores that policy objectives related to recipients' diets are not enumerated as valid grounds for approving state-level restrictions under the statute cited by the agency.
Summary of the ruling, the parties' positions and the program context are presented above. The lawsuit and the court's decision focus on statutory interpretation of the USDA's waiver authority and the consequences for SNAP participants who argued that the restrictions would hinder their access to foods they depend on for health and daily functioning.