A federal judge has halted a major federal initiative aimed at restricting which foods qualify for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), delivering a procedural blow to state-level food bans.
On Monday, Judge Amy Berman Jackson of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued a memorandum opinion blocking pilot restriction programs across five states: Colorado, Iowa, Nebraska, Tennessee, and West Virginia.
The lawsuit was brought forward by SNAP participants Nieves Aragon, Marc Craig, Nathan Fleming, Amanda Johnson, and Hunter Starks. According to court documents, the plaintiffs challenged the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins, arguing the agency bypassed federal law to implement the restrictions.
“Plaintiffs brought this action… to challenge their approval of state pilot projects that restrict SNAP participants from buying certain foods and beverages with SNAP benefits,” Judge Jackson noted in the document. “The complaint consists of three counts under the Administrative Procedure Act (‘APA’), claiming that defendants exceeded their statutory authority, failed to engage in reasoned decision-making, and disregarded a mandatory procedural requirement.”
The MAHA Conflict: Redefining “Food”
The blocked pilot programs were a cornerstone of the administration’s “Make America Healthy Again” (MAHA) initiative. Under the policy, the USDA had approved waivers for 23 states to ban SNAP beneficiaries from purchasing items such as soda, energy drinks, and candy.
However, Judge Jackson ruled that while the USDA has the authority to issue waivers to improve program efficiency, it cannot arbitrarily rewrite definitions established by lawmakers.
“The Secretary purports to waive not just a mere administrative or technical obstacle, but the very definition of ‘food’ as it was laid down by Congress,” Jackson wrote. “Neither the USDA nor the states can force this square peg into a round hole.”
Furthermore, the court found that the USDA had ignored mandatory administrative procedures. Federal law requires 30 days’ notice in the Federal Register before implementing pilot projects with a significant public impact. The USDA’s claim that these sweeping state restrictions would not have a significant impact was deemed “directly contrary” to the evidence in the administrative record.
Related Article: SNAP Food Restrictions Put $830M in Grocery Sales at Risk
Industry and Advocacy Reaction
The ruling was welcomed by public health and anti-hunger advocates who argue that restriction-based policies hurt families and create massive operational confusion for food retailers.
In a statement, the Food Research & Action Center (FRAC) emphasized that Congress has historically favored positive reinforcement over bans:
“As the court shows, Congress specifically authorized incentive-based strategies to encourage healthier eating. It did not authorize USDA to redefine what qualifies as food under SNAP or eliminate entire categories of otherwise eligible foods from the program.”
For food retailers, wholesalers, and independent grocers, the ruling offers immediate relief from a looming operational headache. A patchwork of state-by-state food bans would have forced multi-state operators to completely overhaul their point-of-sale (POS) systems and inventory SKUs to comply with varying regional restrictions.
The Administration Vows to Fight Back
The legal battle is far from over. Following the decision, Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins took to social media to heavily criticize the court’s intervention and double down on the administration’s MAHA goals.
“An activist judge just blocked our commonsense restriction on using SNAP benefits for soda and junk,” Rollins posted. “SNAP is for food — not sugar bombs fueling obesity, diabetes, and skyrocketing healthcare costs for low-income families. Taxpayers shouldn’t subsidize junk food and drinks at the expense of American health. This administration will keep fighting to Make America Healthy Again.”
While the administration prepares its next legal steps, the federal definition of SNAP-eligible foods remains uniform across all 50 states, pausing rollout plans for the remaining 18 states seeking similar waivers.