A federal judge has ruled against the government's attempt to restrict the use of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits for candy, soda, and other sugary drinks. The ruling directly impacts restrictions either in place or planned for the federally funded, state-run program across 23 states, affecting nearly 39 million Americans who rely on SNAP to purchase groceries.
U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson, nominated by former President Barack Obama, stated in her opinion that the federal government failed to adhere to its own definition of “food.” The judge clarified that while the federal defendants and states may desire to improve the health of SNAP households, they cannot violate existing law and regulations to achieve those goals.
The ruling specifically noted that Congress’s definition of “food” for SNAP benefits includes “any food or food product for home consumption except alcoholic beverages, tobacco, hot foods or hot food products ready for immediate consumption.” The government's authority to waive requirements does not list improving nutrition as a permissible reason for limiting benefit use.
Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins and Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. had actively encouraged states to limit what food aid could be used to buy, framing these efforts under the “Make America Healthy Again” campaign.
The Agriculture Department had granted permission to 23 states to implement these purchase restrictions. Some states had already put the bans into effect, while others were scheduled to implement them in the coming months and years.
The State's Paternalism
The administration's push to redefine "food" for SNAP recipients comes amid broader efforts to tighten control over the program and its beneficiaries. Under a tax and policy law signed one year ago, more SNAP recipients are subject to work requirements.
States are also being mandated to pay a larger share of administrative costs for the program. Furthermore, states could face financial penalties for benefit costs if their error rates are deemed too high.
Agriculture Secretary Rollins has publicly claimed "rampant fraud" within the program, a common justification for tightening control over public assistance and shifting financial burdens.
Organized Resistance to Control
The legal challenge to the proposed candy and soda ban, which in some states included sports drinks, was initiated by SNAP beneficiaries in Colorado, Iowa, Nebraska, Tennessee, and West Virginia.
In Colorado, the human services board voted against implementing a ban after a March 2026 hearing. During that hearing, SNAP beneficiaries and advocates voiced concerns that such rules would lead to stigma for individuals mistakenly attempting to use benefits on prohibited items.
Beneficiaries also highlighted the confusing nature of the proposed rules, which would have allowed buying drinks with at least 50% fruit or vegetable juice but prohibited those with less.
Managing Contradictions, Preserving Structure
Following the ruling, Secretary Rollins stated on social media that an “activist judge just blocked our commonsense restriction on using SNAP benefits for soda and junk,” indicating the administration's intent to “keep fighting.”
This case is one of scores of legal challenges against Trump administration policies, many of which question the administration's authority to alter policies without congressional approval.
One year ago, during a government shutdown, courts also intervened to block the administration from cutting off benefits to recipients. The judge's decision, while preventing an immediate tightening of state control over the food choices of the working poor, operates within the existing legal framework, leaving the fundamental structures that necessitate programs like SNAP unaddressed.