A federal court has blocked a Trump administration effort allowing states to restrict Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits from being used to purchase sugary drinks and other high-sugar foods, halting a policy push that had been framed as part of a broader effort to address diet-related health concerns.
U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson ruled Monday that the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) exceeded its legal authority when it approved state waiver requests designed to exclude specific categories of food from SNAP eligibility.
The court found that federal law defines eligible purchases under the Food and Nutrition Act and does not permit agencies to narrow that definition by removing entire product categories through administrative approval.
The case stemmed from pilot program requests submitted by five states—Colorado, Iowa, Nebraska, Tennessee, and West Virginia—seeking permission to block SNAP recipients from using benefits to purchase items such as soda and candy.
The USDA had approved similar waiver requests in multiple states as part of a broader initiative tied to nutrition-focused reforms promoted by administration officials, according to Reuters.
In her ruling, Jackson, an Obama appointee, wrote that while federal agencies may test limited demonstration projects to improve program efficiency, those experiments cannot override Congress’s statutory framework governing SNAP benefits.
She said the USDA’s approvals went beyond experimental authority and effectively attempted to rewrite eligibility rules for what counts as food under the program.
SNAP is a federally funded program administered jointly with states that provides monthly food-purchasing assistance to tens of millions of low-income Americans.
The challenged waivers would have allowed participating states to restrict the use of benefits for certain processed and sugary products, a move supporters said was aimed at addressing rising rates of obesity and chronic disease, according to Newsmax.
The Trump administration defended the policy as a health-driven reform, arguing that public assistance funds should not be used for products widely associated with negative health outcomes.
A USDA spokesperson said the department remained committed to pursuing nutrition initiatives and signaled that it would continue efforts to encourage healthier food choices among SNAP participants.
Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins had supported the waiver approach as part of a broader “Make America Healthy Again” initiative focused on dietary change and chronic disease prevention.
The ruling temporarily halts implementation of that strategy while legal limits on agency authority remain under review.
Advocates for SNAP recipients challenged the policy, arguing that restricting access to certain foods could interfere with medically necessary diets for individuals managing conditions such as diabetes and food allergies.
They also argued that federal agencies cannot redefine eligibility standards for food purchases without explicit congressional authorization, according to The Hill.
The ruling vacates USDA approval letters that had authorized participating states to proceed with the restrictions, effectively stopping the waiver program from moving forward under its current structure.
The case now returns to lower proceedings consistent with the court’s interpretation of federal law governing SNAP eligibility rules.
