BY MIRABEL ODETA
A federal judge in Washington, D.C., on Monday blocked the Trump administration from moving forward with restrictions that would prevent some Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) recipients in five states from using their benefits to purchase sugary foods and beverages.
U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson ruled that the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) did not have the authority under federal law to approve state requests that would limit SNAP purchases of products such as soda, candy, and other sweetened items.
The decision came after five plaintiffs challenged the restrictions, arguing that the limits could interfere with their ability to access food and make choices based on their individual health needs.
The USDA had approved food restriction waivers in 23 states that sought permission to limit what SNAP participants could purchase with their benefits. The policy was supported by Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins and Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as part of the “Make America Healthy Again” (MAHA) initiative, which focuses on promoting healthier lifestyles and reducing consumption of certain foods.
SNAP, commonly known as the food stamp program, provides monthly food assistance to approximately 42 million low-income Americans and is administered by the USDA in partnership with state governments.
In her ruling, Jackson acknowledged that federal officials and states may have legitimate goals of improving health outcomes among SNAP households but said those goals must still follow existing federal law.
“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 USDA defended the restrictions and indicated that it would continue seeking ways to change how SNAP benefits can be used.
“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, including for families and communities reliant on SNAP.”
The lawsuit was filed by residents of Colorado, Iowa, Nebraska, Tennessee, and West Virginia. The plaintiffs argued that the restrictions could negatively affect them or their family members, including individuals who rely on certain foods to manage health conditions such as diabetes or allergies, or to maintain energy levels needed for daily activities.
They asked the court to prevent the restrictions from taking effect in their states.
Katharine Deabler-Meadows, an attorney representing the plaintiffs through the National Center for Law and Economic Justice, said the ruling protected access to food assistance for SNAP participants across the country.
“The court’s ruling is a major step in restoring essential food assistance to the millions of families that rely on SNAP nationwide,” she said.
Jackson’s ruling focused on the legal limits of the USDA’s authority, stating that the agency could approve waivers only for purposes specifically permitted under federal law, including efforts to improve the efficiency and administration of SNAP.
The judge said improving the health and diet of SNAP recipients was not among the purposes authorized by Congress for approving such waivers.
The decision adds to the ongoing national debate over whether government nutrition assistance programs should place additional limits on certain purchases. Supporters of restrictions argue that taxpayer-funded benefits should encourage healthier food choices, while opponents say such rules could limit personal choice and create barriers for families who depend on SNAP assistance.
Original article
Comments