A federal judge has ruled that the Department of Agriculture (USDA) lacks the authority to approve state restrictions on certain Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) purchases, blocking the implementation of a policy that would prohibit beneficiaries from buying certain food and beverage products in five states and raising questions about whether similar bans will be approved in other states.
In a June 22 ruling, U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson found that the USDA does not have the authority to approve “waivers” that exclude certain foods from SNAP eligibility, including foods that are classified as “junk foods.” In her ruling, Jackson said the USDA does not have the authority to “completely exclude food items from the SNAP program.”
While restrictions varied by state, the waivers approved in 23 states generally prohibited SNAP recipients from using their benefits to purchase items such as soda, energy drinks and candy.
In response, several SNAP recipients in Colorado, Iowa, Nebraska, Tennessee and West Virginia sued the Department of Agriculture in March, arguing that the restrictions “destabilize food access” for beneficiaries and exceeded the agency’s legal authority.
“Congress defined what a ‘food’ was and did not authorize the agency to amend or rescind its definition,” the judge wrote.
While the Trump administration has not said whether it plans to appeal the decision, Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins wrote on social media that the administration will “continue to fight to make America healthy again.”
How has the government tried to block SNAP purchases of unhealthy food?
The Trump administration has invited states to apply for waivers allowing them to limit SNAP purchases of items such as soda, candy and energy drinks as part of its Make America Healthy Again initiative.
Administration officials said the policy aims to combat obesity and chronic disease, return SNAP to its “nutritional purpose” and ensure taxpayer money is spent on healthier food choices. Under this policy, states can apply for a waiver allowing them to limit purchases of certain products using SNAP benefits.
Nebraska became the first state to receive approval in May 2025, followed by Indiana and Iowa before the USDA expanded the program to 23 states.
The waivers were approved as demonstration projects to allow states to test restrictions on food items that would otherwise be eligible for purchase under SNAP.
To ensure compliance with the restrictions, retailers will update their checkout systems to allow SNAP EBT cards to reject purchases of prohibited items while allowing customers to purchase them with cash, debit or credit.
Specific restrictions varied by state, with some targeting soda and candy and others being enforced. their more widely.
Which states are affected by this decision?
The ruling currently blocks any restrictions on SNAP food purchases in Colorado, Iowa, Nebraska, Tennessee and West Virginia.
The decision will not immediately affect the 18 other states that have approved waivers. These states have either already implemented restrictions or are still working to implement them in the future.
Arkansas is pushing ahead with its SNAP food ban despite a recent ruling.
In confirming the move on June 29, Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders cited the urgent need to combat what she called America’s “chronic disease epidemic,” including high rates of obesity, diabetes and heart disease.
In a press release, the Arkansas governor’s office cited a Stanford University study that found limiting food stamp purchases of sugary drinks could reduce rates of obesity and type 2 diabetes. However, research remains mixed on whether restricting SNAP purchases improves nutritional quality. or health.
Iowa faces the most extensive restrictions. Instead of targeting only soda or candy, his waiver would prohibit SNAP purchases of most food items subject to state sales tax, including candy, soft drinks, dietary supplements and prepared foods.
Mississippi’s request for a waiver is still awaiting USDA approval, while Alabama, South Dakota and Wisconsin have announced plans to seek waivers. The court’s decision may affect how these requests are processed.
While no claims are pending at this time, if others are filed or if an appeals court upholds Jackson’s decision, those denials could also be overturned.