A federal judge has ruled that the government cannot stop SNAP benefits from being used to buy candy, soda and other sugary drinks, blocking restrictions now in place or planned in 23 states. The fight is over a program that helps nearly 39 million Americans, about 1 in 9, buy groceries, while federal officials and state governments try to narrow what poor people can purchase with aid they depend on.
Who Gets Policed
U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson, who sits in Washington and was nominated to the bench by former President Barack Obama, said in her opinion that the federal government did not follow its own definition of “food.” She wrote, “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. But what they cannot do is violate the law and their own regulations along the way.”
That ruling affects restrictions now in place or planned for the federally funded and state-run Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program in 23 states. The Agriculture Department has given those states permission to implement restrictions, and some have already done so while others are scheduled to take effect in the coming months and years. The machinery of administration moved first; the people who use the program were left to deal with the consequences.
What the Bosses Called “Health”
Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins and Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. have encouraged states to limit what the food aid can be used to buy as part of the “Make America Healthy Again” campaign. Rollins suggested on social media Tuesday that the administration would “keep fighting to Make America Health Again,” though she did not say directly whether there would be an appeal. Rollins said, “an activist judge just blocked our commonsense restriction on using SNAP benefits for soda and junk.”
The language of “commonsense” sits neatly on top of a system that already decides who gets help, what counts as acceptable food, and how much humiliation comes with using the aid. In Colorado, the human services board voted against implementing a ban after a March hearing in which SNAP beneficiaries and advocates said people would face stigma if they mistakenly tried to use benefits on prohibited items. They also said the rules were confusing because they would have allowed buying drinks with at least 50% fruit or vegetable juice, but not those with less.
A legal challenge to the candy and soda ban, which includes sports drinks in some states, was filed by SNAP beneficiaries in Colorado, Iowa, Nebraska, Tennessee and West Virginia. Those beneficiaries were the ones forced to navigate the rules, the stigma, and the threat of being told their groceries were not good enough for the state’s approval.
What the Law Actually Says
Jackson said the main legal problem was that the restrictions ran contrary to Congress’s definition of “food.” Under the law, SNAP benefits, formerly known as food stamps, can be used for “any food or food product for home consumption except alcoholic beverages, tobacco, hot foods or hot food products ready for immediate consumption.” The government can waive requirements, but limiting use of the benefits to improve nutrition is not listed as a reason to do so.
When states asked the Agriculture Department to let them restrict purchases, their requests included using alternate definitions of “food.” That detail matters because it shows how the apparatus tries to rewrite the terms of aid after the fact, then calls it policy. The judge said the federal government did not follow its own definition, and the case now joins scores of challenges to Trump administration policies that hinge on whether the administration has the authority to change policies without congressional approval.
The broader squeeze on working people does not stop at the checkout line. Under the tax and policy law signed last year, more recipients are subject to work requirements and states are being required to pay a larger share of administrative costs and could be on the hook for benefit costs if their error rates are too high. During a government shutdown last year, courts blocked the administration from cutting off benefits. Rollins has said there is rampant fraud in the program.
The result is a program that feeds millions while being repeatedly narrowed, audited, policed and politically weaponized from above. The people who rely on SNAP are told to accept the rules, the stigma, and the shifting definitions. The people writing those rules keep calling it health, reform, and common sense.