WASHINGTON — A federal judge on Monday struck down a series of state-approved restrictions that barred some recipients of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits from using the aid to purchase items such as soda and candy, dealing a setback to the Trump administration’s “Make America Healthy Again” (MAHA) initiative, according to court records and statements from the parties involved.
U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson ruled that the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) lacked authority under federal law to approve waivers allowing states to restrict certain food purchases under SNAP, commonly known as the food stamp program. The ruling came in a lawsuit brought by five plaintiffs from Colorado, Iowa, Nebraska, Tennessee and West Virginia who challenged the restrictions.
In her decision, Jackson said federal law permits the USDA to approve waivers for limited purposes, such as improving program administration, but does not authorize the agency to redefine what foods are eligible for purchase under SNAP.
“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.”
The restrictions were part of a broader effort backed by Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins and Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who promoted limits on purchases of products such as sugary drinks and candy as part of the MAHA agenda. The USDA had approved food-restriction waivers in more than 20 states, according to agency statements cited in court filings.
The plaintiffs argued that some restricted items were used to manage health conditions, including diabetes and allergies, and that the limits reduced access to food for low-income households. Their lawsuit sought to block enforcement of the restrictions in their states.
The USDA defended the policy and signaled it would continue pursuing efforts to limit the use of federal nutrition benefits for what it considers unhealthy foods. “The idea that taxpayer funds should not be used to purchase junk food should not be controversial,” a USDA spokesperson said in a statement. “USDA will not be backing down from the fight to Make America Healthy Again.”
Katharine Deabler-Meadows, an attorney representing the plaintiffs, called the ruling “a major step in restoring essential food assistance” for families relying on SNAP benefits.
The ruling blocks the challenged restrictions in the five states involved in the lawsuit. As of Monday, the administration had indicated it would continue advocating for changes to SNAP food-purchase rules, while the broader legal and policy status of similar waivers in other states remained under review.
