Judge stops Trump: SNAP maintains purchases of soda and candy in 5 states
A federal judge stopped the restrictions that the Trump administration wanted to impose on SNAP in five states, especially regarding the purchase of soda and candy
Thousands of families receiving food assistance in the United States will, for now, retain the ability to purchase soft drinks, candy and other products permitted by federal law with their Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits. A federal judge blocked a measure promoted by Donald Trump's administration that sought to restrict these purchases in several states.
The decision represents a setback for an initiative backed by Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins. Both officials have promoted changes to the SNAP program as part of the “Make America Healthy Again” campaign, focused on reducing consumption of foods considered unhealthy.
“This decision makes clear that the USDA cannot circumvent the legal safeguards that establish how the SNAP program must operate across the country,” said Katharine Deabler Meadows, senior staff attorney at the National Center for Law and Economic Justice, involved in the dissenting states' lawsuit.
The conflict began after the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) authorized several states to limit the use of SNAP benefits to purchase certain products, including soft drinks and candy. However, beneficiaries in Colorado, Iowa, Nebraska, Tennessee and West Virginia filed a lawsuit arguing that the restrictions would affect access to food and cause confusion among program users.
In ruling on the case, Judge Amy Berman Jackson concluded that the USDA did not have the authority to approve such restrictions.
“Congress defined what is considered ‘food’ and did not authorize the agency to amend or exempt from the definition it promulgated,” Jackson wrote in his ruling. “It also did not authorize the agency to completely exclude certain types of foods from the SNAP program.”
SNAP is a federal program that helps millions of low-income Americans buy food each month. Although the resources come from the federal government, each state administers the benefits locally.
Following the court decision, the USDA was not satisfied with the determination and defended the proposal.
“The idea that taxpayer funds should not be used to purchase junk food should not be controversial,” a USDA spokesperson stated. “We will not give up our fight to make America healthy again, including for the families and communities that depend on the SNAP program.”
The ruling applies directly to the five states involved in the lawsuit, but could have broader consequences. Currently, the USDA has authorized 23 states to implement similar restrictions through special waivers.
“Other initiatives passed to restrict the SNAP program were based on the same USDA process, the same legal authority and many of the same legal and procedural assumptions that the court rejected,” Gina Plata-Nino, SNAP program director at the Center for Food Research and Action, told CBS News. “Therefore, the decision could serve as a guide for future challenges.”
For now, SNAP recipients in the states involved (Colorado, Iowa, Nebraska, Tennessee and West Virginia) will be able to continue using their benefits under current federal rules. However, the debate over which foods should be allowed under the program continues and could lead to new legal disputes in the coming months.