A federal judge has struck down restrictions that would have prevented nearly 39 million Americans from using food assistance benefits to purchase candy, soda, and sugary drinks, ruling that the government violated its own legal definitions and regulatory procedures. The decision affects restrictions already implemented or planned in 23 states under the federally funded Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.
U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson, nominated to the bench by former President Barack Obama, ruled that federal officials failed to follow the law's definition of "food" when authorizing states to limit what SNAP recipients can purchase. "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."
Administration's 'Make America Healthy Again' Campaign
Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins and Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. have encouraged states to restrict food aid purchases as part of the "Make America Healthy Again" campaign. The Agriculture Department granted permission to 23 states to implement such restrictions, with some already in effect and others scheduled to begin in coming months and years.
The legal challenge was filed by SNAP beneficiaries in Colorado, Iowa, Nebraska, Tennessee and West Virginia, representing the millions of Americans who rely on the program—about 1 in 9 people nationwide—to buy groceries.
Beneficiaries Warned of Stigma and Confusion
Colorado's human services board voted against implementing a ban after a March hearing where SNAP beneficiaries and advocates testified about the practical harms of such restrictions. They warned that people would face stigma if they mistakenly tried to use benefits on prohibited items. Advocates also highlighted the confusing nature of rules that would allow purchasing drinks with at least 50% fruit or vegetable juice, but not those with less.
Legal Foundation of the Ruling
Jackson found that the restrictions contradicted 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." While the government can waive requirements, limiting benefit use to improve nutrition is not listed as a permitted reason to do so.
When states requested permission to restrict purchases, their applications included using alternate definitions of "food" not authorized by statute.
Rollins responded on social media Tuesday, calling Jackson "an activist judge" who "just blocked our commonsense restriction on using SNAP benefits for soda and junk." She suggested the administration would "keep fighting to Make America Health Again," though did not directly say whether an appeal would be filed.
Broader Context of SNAP Under Pressure
The case is among scores of challenges to administration policies that turn on whether officials have authority to change policies without congressional approval. Under a tax and policy law signed last year, more SNAP recipients are subject to work requirements and states are being required to pay a larger share of administrative costs. States could also be financially liable 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 claimed there is rampant fraud in the program.
Why This Matters:
This ruling protects food access for nearly 39 million Americans at a time when the safety net faces mounting pressure. SNAP serves approximately 1 in 9 people nationwide, many of them working families, children, elderly individuals, and people with disabilities who depend on the program to meet basic nutritional needs. The decision affirms that administrative agencies cannot unilaterally rewrite statutory definitions to impose restrictions Congress did not authorize, preserving the program's fundamental purpose of ensuring food security. The testimony from beneficiaries and advocates in Colorado revealed real-world consequences of such restrictions: stigma at checkout counters and confusing rules that could leave vulnerable families unable to purchase food. As SNAP faces additional pressures—including expanded work requirements, increased state cost-sharing, and threats of benefit cuts during government shutdowns—this ruling reinforces that changes to the program must follow proper legal procedures and congressional intent, not executive preference alone.