A federal judge has struck down efforts by Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins and Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to restrict the purchase of candy, soda and sugary drinks under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, blocking health-focused reforms in 23 states and raising questions about executive authority over a program serving nearly 39 million Americans.
U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson, nominated to the bench by former President Barack Obama, ruled that the federal government violated its own regulations by attempting to redefine what constitutes "food" under SNAP guidelines. The ruling affects restrictions already in place or planned across nearly half the states in the nation.
The Legal Challenge
SNAP beneficiaries in Colorado, Iowa, Nebraska, Tennessee and West Virginia filed the legal challenge that led to Jackson's decision. The judge determined that the restrictions contradicted Congress's statutory definition of "food," which allows SNAP benefits—formerly known as food stamps—to 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."
Jackson wrote in her opinion that while federal defendants and 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," they "cannot violate the law and their own regulations along the way." The Agriculture Department had given 23 states permission to implement restrictions, with some already enforcing bans on candy, soda and sports drinks while others were scheduled to take effect in coming months and years.
The Make America Healthy Again Campaign
The restrictions were part of Rollins and Kennedy's "Make America Healthy Again" campaign. When states requested permission to limit purchases, their applications included using alternate definitions of "food" not authorized under current law. The judge found that while the government can waive certain requirements, improving nutrition is not listed as a permissible reason to do so.
Rollins responded on social media Tuesday, stating that "an activist judge just blocked our commonsense restriction on using SNAP benefits for soda and junk," and suggested the administration would "keep fighting to Make America Health Again," though she did not directly confirm plans to appeal.
State Implementation Concerns
Colorado's human services board voted against implementing a ban after a March hearing where SNAP beneficiaries and advocates raised practical concerns. They argued that recipients would face stigma if they mistakenly tried to purchase prohibited items, and that the rules created confusion by allowing drinks with at least 50 percent fruit or vegetable juice while prohibiting those with less.
Broader SNAP Reforms
The case represents one of numerous legal challenges to Trump administration policies centered on whether the executive branch has authority to change policies without congressional approval. SNAP currently helps nearly 39 million Americans—approximately 1 in 9—buy groceries. Under a 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. States could also be responsible 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 stated there is rampant fraud in the program.
Why This Matters:
This ruling highlights fundamental tensions between executive authority and congressional oversight in administering federal assistance programs. The decision blocks reforms aimed at addressing public health concerns through SNAP purchasing restrictions, leaving taxpayer-funded benefits available for items many health experts consider detrimental to recipient wellbeing. With SNAP serving nearly 39 million Americans at significant federal expense, the inability to implement commonsense nutritional standards raises questions about program accountability and whether existing statutory frameworks adequately serve both fiscal responsibility and public health objectives. The case also underscores the broader challenge facing administrative efforts to reform entitlement programs when statutory language limits executive flexibility, potentially requiring legislative action to achieve policy goals that enjoy broad public support.