A US District Court has put the brakes on new restrictions in five of the 23 states that would have prevented food benefits distributed under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) from being used on candy, snacks, sugary drinks and other foods deemed unhealthy.
Judge Amy Berman Jackson of the US District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that the US Department of Agriculture exceeded its authority in granting the waivers requested by 23 states enacting various SNAP bans.
Proponents of the waivers sharply criticized the decision, arguing that preventing limits on candy and sugary drink purchases through SNAP undermines efforts to improve public health and address the obesity crisis.
Opponents lauded the decision, arguing that the patchwork of legislation across the country causes confusion and that the bans fail to improve public health.
An appeal of the case will be heard by the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
USDA exceeded its authority
The court ruled that USDA “cannot act with the force of law” without approval from Congress, noting that “the question is not what the agency thinks it should do but what Congress has said it can do.”
“The court’s analysis should not be taken as a comment on whether the pilot projects are a good idea or not. That is a question of policy that is not before the court,” Berman Jackson said in the ruling. “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. But what they cannot do is violate the law and their own regulations along the way.”
The lawsuit, was filed by SNAP recipients in Colorado, Iowa, Nebraska, Tennessee and West Virginia, but the decision will likely not impact all 23 states imposing SNAP restrictions.
“The decision applies only to the five state demonstrations challenged in Aragon v. Rollins. Other approved state restrictions remain in effect unless USDA withdraws them or a court separately invalidates them. USDA may also appeal. Nebraska may present additional issues because it requested another waiver while the litigation was pending,” according to the Food Research & Action Center (FRAC).
Appeal expected on SNAP waivers
USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins released a statement via X.com on Tuesday, criticizing the judge and the SNAP program’s allowance of sugary foods and drinks.
“An activist judge just blocked our commonsense restriction on using SNAP benefits for soda and junk,” Rollins wrote. “SNAP is for food – not sugar bombs fueling obesity, diabetes, and skyrocketing healthcare costs for low-income families. Taxpayers shouldn’t subsidize junk food and drinks at the expense of American health. This administration will keep fighting to Make America Healthy Again.”
The USDA argued in its own statement that cutting taxpayer funded benefits for use on “junk food should not be controversial.”
“USDA will not be backing down from the fight to Make America Healthy Again, including for families and communities reliant on SNAP,” an agency spokesperson said.
Mixed reaction on court ruling
The ruling was celebrated by some but criticized by others.
The National Association of Convenience Stores said the patchwork of legislation from state to state was unworkable administratively.
“This ruling confirms what NACS and convenience retailers have been saying from day one: These waivers do not make SNAP more efficient. They make it more confusing,” said Margaret Mannion, director of government relations for NACS. “Our members are the ones who have to navigate these complex changes at the register every day. This was never a workable system, and we are pleased to see the court agreed.”
Separately, FRAC, which has opposed the SNAP bans, said that the debate is likely to continue.
“The decision does not ban future efforts to improve nutrition and health outcomes for SNAP participants, including incentive programs such as Double Up Food Bucks,” FRAC wrote “It does, however, make clear that any future demonstrations must have clear legal authority, rigorous evaluation, and safeguards to minimize unintended harm to households, retailers, and state agencies. Although the ruling is significant, it does not end the debate over SNAP food restrictions.”
