A federal judge has ruled that the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) exceeded its legal authority by attempting to restrict certain food items, such as candy and soda, from being purchased with Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits.
In March, SNAP participants filed a lawsuit against the USDA, challenging state-specific waivers that prohibited the purchase of specific items. The plaintiffs argued that the agency lacked the legal standing to define which foods were eligible for purchase through the program. SNAP, formerly known as food stamps, provides assistance to approximately 42 million Americans.
Judge Amy Berman Jackson of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia determined that the waivers violated Congress's definition of "food." She stated that the agency was not authorized to amend or waive the congressional definition of food, nor was it empowered to exclude entire categories of food from SNAP eligibility.
Under federal law, SNAP benefits can generally be used for any food intended for home consumption, with exceptions for alcohol, tobacco, and hot prepared foods. The USDA had argued that the waivers were intended to "increase SNAP efficiency."
However, Jackson found no evidence that the pilot projects, as approved by the USDA, would genuinely increase the program's efficiency. Trade groups, including the National Retail Federation, had previously predicted that such restrictions could lead to longer checkout lines and increased customer complaints. The National Grocers Association and other industry groups estimated that implementing these restrictions would initially cost U.S. retailers $1.6 billion, with ongoing annual costs of $759 million.
Advocates for the waivers, including Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., had asserted that the measures would prevent SNAP funds from being used on highly processed, health-compromising foods. Kennedy had stated in December that the system should not require taxpayers to fund programs that contribute to illness and then fund subsequent medical treatment.
Judge Jackson clarified that her ruling did not comment on the policy's intent or other health initiatives, nor did it minimize nutrition concerns. She emphasized that improving nutrition is not a permissible reason for the government to waive program requirements. The court's decision, she noted, was not a judgment on the merits of the pilot projects themselves but on the USDA's legal authority to implement them.
The ruling immediately impacts restrictions in Colorado, Iowa, Nebraska, Tennessee, and West Virginia, and may affect other approved SNAP restrictions that were based on similar USDA procedural decisions. Jackson indicated that the USDA would need to re-evaluate its approach and design future pilot projects in accordance with federal law. She also noted that while the USDA has authority to test initiatives aimed at improving health and nutrition through SNAP, the agency did not cite the relevant section of federal law, which has stringent requirements, when approving these state waivers.
Sources suggest that if the administration wishes to permanently alter or prohibit certain SNAP purchases, Congress may need to amend the program's governing statutes. The USDA stated in an email that it remains committed to the principles of its "Make America Healthy Again" initiative, asserting that preventing taxpayer funds from being used on "junk food" should not be controversial.