Nicolai Haugsted
“The court’s ruling is a major step in restoring essential food assistance to the millions of families”, says attorney.
A courtroom battle over food assistance, public health and government authority has handed the Trump administration another legal setback.
A federal judge in Washington ruled Monday that the U.S. Department of Agriculture cannot stop SNAP recipients in five states from using their benefits to purchase sugary foods and drinks, finding that federal officials exceeded their legal authority.
Court rejects key part of health initiative
The case centers on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, better known as SNAP, which provides food assistance to roughly 42 million low-income Americans.
Over the past year, the USDA approved a series of state requests allowing restrictions on purchases of products such as soda and candy. Supporters argued the changes would encourage healthier eating habits and align with the administration’s “Make America Healthy Again” agenda championed by Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins and Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
Judge Amy Berman Jackson disagreed with the government’s legal justification.
“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 according to Reuters.
“But what they cannot do is violate the law and their own regulations along the way.”
Plaintiffs argued restrictions could hurt vulnerable families
Five SNAP recipients from Colorado, Iowa, Nebraska, Tennessee and West Virginia challenged the policy earlier this year.
According to the lawsuit, some families rely on products covered by the restrictions to help manage medical conditions, including diabetes and allergies, while others use them as a practical source of energy throughout the day.
The plaintiffs argued that limiting access to those products would reduce food choices and create new barriers for households already facing financial challenges.
Their challenge focused specifically on preventing the restrictions from taking effect in their home states.
USDA vows to continue fight
Federal officials quickly signaled they are not backing away from the broader policy goal.
“The idea that taxpayer funds should not be used to purchase junk food should not be controversial,” a USDA spokesperson said after the ruling.
“USDA will not be backing down from the fight to Make America Healthy Again, including for families and communities reliant on SNAP.”
The agency has already approved similar waivers in 23 states, though Monday’s decision blocks implementation in the states involved in the lawsuit.
Limits of federal authority
A central issue in the case was not nutrition policy itself, but whether federal law gives the USDA power to approve such restrictions.
Jackson concluded that waiver authority granted by Congress is limited to specific administrative purposes, such as improving the efficiency of the SNAP program.
“Improving the health and diet of SNAP recipients is not included,” Jackson wrote.
Attorneys representing the plaintiffs welcomed the decision.
“The court’s ruling is a major step in restoring essential food assistance to the millions of families that rely on SNAP nationwide,” said Katharine Deabler-Meadows of the National Center for Law and Economic Justice.
The ruling marks another chapter in the growing legal fight over how far federal agencies can go in reshaping public assistance programs in the name of public health.
