A federal judge has blocked a Trump administration effort to limit what some SNAP recipients can buy with their food assistance benefits, dealing a setback to one of the Make America Healthy Again movement’s signature policy goals.
U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson, an Obama appointee, ruled Monday that the Department of Agriculture lacked the authority to approve state plans restricting purchases of items such as soda and candy through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.
The ruling applies to five states — Colorado, Iowa, Nebraska, Tennessee and West Virginia — that had sought to participate in the pilot programs.
Download the SAN app today to stay up-to-date with Unbiased. Straight Facts™.
Point phone camera here
Ruling focuses on process, not policy
Jackson made clear that her decision was not based on whether limiting SNAP purchases is good public policy.
Instead, she found that Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins failed to follow federal law and USDA regulations when approving the programs. In her ruling, Jackson wrote that the USDA cannot simply redefine what qualifies as “food” under federal law and faulted the agency for failing to provide required public notice before moving forward with pilot projects.
“That is a question of policy that is not before the court,” Jackson wrote, referring to the debate over whether restricting certain purchases would improve public health.
A major MAHA priority
Restrictions on SNAP purchases have become one of the most visible policy initiatives of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy’s Jr.’s Make America Healthy Again agenda.
Kennedy and Rollins have encouraged states to seek waivers limiting purchases of products such as soda and candy, arguing taxpayers should not subsidize unhealthy food choices.
Supporters say the changes could improve health outcomes. Critics have argued there is little evidence that restricting purchases would meaningfully improve nutrition while making it harder for families to access food assistance.
The issue has also been complicated by differences among state proposals. While many targeted soda and candy, states adopted different definitions of what qualifies as an unhealthy food, creating inconsistencies in what SNAP recipients could purchase from one state to another.
What about the rest of the states?
According to the USDA, at least 23 states have applied for waivers allowing them to limit the foods SNAP recipients can buy with their benefits. Not all have implemented the changes yet.
Jackson’s ruling applies only to the five states that were plaintiffs in the case, leaving uncertainty about what happens to similar programs approved elsewhere.
It is not yet clear whether the Trump administration plans to appeal.
Other Trump administration changes
The Trump administration has also implemented other controversial changes to SNAP since President Donald Trump took back the Oval Office last year.
The “Big Beautiful Bill” signed into law last July changed how SNAP operates. It mandates that “able-bodied” Americans without dependents work 80 hours a month to receive benefits.
The BBB also expanded who is considered able-bodied and lowered the age of dependents from 18 to 14. It also added new regulations about how to measure unemployment for waivers.
Round out your reading
- With more prison space than prisoners, correctional facilities are shutting down.
- ‘Game changer’: New cancer treatment turns major surgery into an outpatient procedure.
- Viewers overwhelmingly support ‘The View’s’ fight against the FCC. Will that matter?
- Why an ICE shooting in Houston isn’t leading to mass protests.
- Milwaukee detective is the latest officer charged with misusing Flock cameras.
![[your]NEWS logo](https://groundnews.b-cdn.net/interests/fb6dc495f74049f513563c33352175eaa0ecd509.jpg)
