A federal judge has blocked the Trump administration’s effort to restrict the use of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits for soda, candy and other products targeted under the administration’s “Make America Healthy Again” (MAHA) agenda, creating fresh uncertainty for retailers and state agencies that had already begun implementing the rules.
U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson ruled that the U.S. Department of Agriculture lacked the authority to approve state waivers that effectively redefined which foods qualify for purchase under SNAP. The decision halts restrictions and changes that had been approved or were scheduled to take effect in 23 states, including programs already underway in several markets.
The ruling marks a significant development in a legal battle we first examined in March. At the time, at least 23 states were pursuing or implementing SNAP restrictions targeting soda, candy, and sugar-sweetened beverages after receiving USDA approval. The effort represented one of the most significant changes to SNAP purchasing rules in decades and raised concerns among retailers about compliance, technology updates and inconsistent product definitions across state lines.
Judge Jackson’s decision focused on legal authority rather than nutrition policy. In her ruling, Jackson said Congress – not the USDA – determines what qualifies as food under SNAP and that federal officials cannot impose new restrictions without legislative action.
The lawsuit was brought by SNAP recipients in Colorado, Iowa, Nebraska, Tennessee and West Virginia, who argued that the restrictions created barriers to food access and imposed additional burdens on program participants. Advocacy groups also contended that the patchwork of state-specific rules created confusion for both shoppers and retailers.
For food retailers, the ruling temporarily removes a growing compliance challenge. As we’ve reported, varying state definitions of restricted products had raised questions about point-of-sale programming, employee training and the risk of transaction errors. Some retailers warned that differing state standards could complicate SNAP administration, particularly for regional chains operating in multiple states.
USDA officials indicated they remain committed to limiting taxpayer-funded purchases of what they characterize as junk food, suggesting the administration could appeal the decision or seek legislative remedies.
Here’s why it matters: The ruling preserves the longstanding national standard for SNAP purchases – for now. But the broader debate over nutrition policy, public health and government authority in food assistance programs is far from settled. Retailers should expect continued legal, regulatory and political battles over what products qualify for purchase with SNAP benefits in the months ahead.