A federal judge ruled that SNAP benefits cannot be restricted to exclude candy, soda, and other sugary drinks, a decision that blocks state and federal attempts in 23 states to limit purchases. The ruling centers on the legal definition of food under the program, affirming that benefits can’t be curtailed to pursue health goals based on broad policy aims. The decision leaves intact the wider program serving nearly 39 million Americans, while the administration weighs an appeal. The case highlights tensions between health objectives and statutory limits, with states pursuing varied rules under the Make America Healthy Again framework. Moving forward, the outcome hinges on potential appellate action and how agencies interpret funding and eligibility rules.
Dive Deeper:
U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson ruled that the federal government cannot block SNAP benefits from being used to buy candy, soda, and other sugary drinks, affecting restrictions prepared or already in place in 23 states.
The decision states the actions aren’t a ruling on whether the restrictions are good policy, but rather a finding that they violate existing law and regulations governing SNAP.
Key figures referenced include Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins and Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who had advocated for limiting purchases under their Make America Healthy Again initiative.
Colorado initially planned to ban certain items but reversed course after concerns about stigmatization and rule complexity, illustrating the political and logistical challenges of implementing such restrictions.
The legal challenge was brought by SNAP beneficiaries in several states, arguing that restricting what can be bought with benefits oversteps the statutory definition of ‘food’ in the program.
The ruling notes that states sought to redefine ‘food’ through waivers, but the Agriculture Department has not indicated whether it will appeal, and the broader policy debate includes questions about federal authority without congressional approval.
The case comes as SNAP faces ongoing scrutiny amid broader political fights over welfare policies and administrative costs, with questions about fraud, eligibility, and work requirements shaping the policy landscape.