A federal judge has blocked a series of Trump administration-backed efforts aimed at preventing Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits from being used to purchase soda and other sugary beverages, ruling that federal officials exceeded their authority under existing law.
In a decision released Monday, U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson concluded that Congress, not federal agencies, has the authority to determine what qualifies as food under the nation’s food assistance program. The ruling represents a setback for an initiative supported by the administration and advocates seeking to address rising obesity rates through reforms to SNAP spending.
“Congress defined what ‘food’ is supposed to be,” Jackson wrote, arguing that lawmakers did not give the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) authority to alter that definition or remove entire categories of products from eligibility.
The judge acknowledged that obesity presents serious health concerns, particularly among low-income Americans, but emphasized that Congress had already established specific methods for testing potential reforms. According to her ruling, federal officials cannot simply rewrite statutory definitions in pursuit of policy goals they view as worthwhile.
The legal challenge stemmed from actions taken by five states — Iowa, Nebraska, West Virginia, Colorado, and Tennessee — that sought permission from the USDA between April and August 2025 to conduct pilot programs restricting the purchase of certain products with SNAP benefits. The proposals focused on removing soft drinks and soda from the federal definition of eligible food items.
Five SNAP recipients from those states ultimately sued the USDA after the agency approved the requests. Represented by the National Center for Law and Economic Justice, the plaintiffs argued that the department lacked authority to implement the restrictions through waiver programs.
Jackson agreed with that argument, pointing to the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008, which establishes the framework governing SNAP purchases. In her ruling, she noted that the law’s existing definition of food remains controlling unless Congress decides to change it.
The judge also vacated approval letters issued by the USDA and Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins that had authorized the pilot projects. The matter was remanded for further action consistent with the court’s decision.
The case highlights a broader debate over the purpose of government assistance programs and whether taxpayer-funded benefits should be used to purchase products widely criticized for their nutritional value. Supporters of the restrictions have argued that encouraging healthier consumption habits could help address long-term health challenges, while opponents contend that federal agencies cannot impose limits that Congress never approved.
According to Reuters, the USDA has approved similar food-restriction waivers in 23 states overall. Those efforts received support from Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as part of the administration’s “Make America Healthy Again” agenda.
Despite the ruling, USDA officials signaled they are not abandoning that broader mission. A department spokesperson defended the policy objective, saying the idea that taxpayer dollars should not be used to purchase junk food “should not be controversial.”
The spokesperson added that the USDA remains committed to pursuing the goals of the Make America Healthy Again movement, including among families who rely on SNAP benefits.
The decision leaves the debate unresolved politically, even as the court has made clear that any major change to SNAP eligibility rules must come from Congress rather than federal regulators. As policymakers continue searching for ways to address public health concerns, the ruling serves as a reminder that lasting reforms often depend as much on legislative authority as on policy ambition.
[READ MORE: Gallego’s Luxury Travel Spending Draws Scrutiny as Questions Mount Over Leadership PAC Funds ]
