A legal battle that starts with a diet soda and concludes in a federal courtroom in Washington is subtly illuminating. This week, US District Judge Amy Berman Jackson ruled that the Trump administration had overreached itself by permitting five states to prohibit SNAP recipients from using their food benefits to purchase sugary drinks and candies.
The decision was a major setback for the “Make America Healthy Again” campaign, which was spearheaded by Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins and Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. The SNAP restrictions were presented by both officials as common sense: why should taxpayer funds be used to purchase candy and soda for individuals who are already battling diabetes and obesity? On the surface, it seems reasonable. However, it turns out that political momentum has little effect on federal law.
Judge Jackson’s viewpoint was well-reasoned and exact. She made it clear that she wasn’t judging whether or not the bans were a good idea. Her argument was more focused and possibly more significant: the USDA lacked the legal right to authorize these state waivers. The definition of “food” under SNAP was established by Congress, and the agency was not authorized to remove items from that definition through administrative pilot programs. “What they cannot do is violate the law and their own regulations along the way,” she said. It’s a powerful sentence.
Each of the five impacted states—Colorado, Iowa, Nebraska, Tennessee, and West Virginia—had created a unique version of the restriction. They all outlawed sugar-filled beverages like energy drinks and soda. Some expanded the prohibition to include candies. State-by-state variations in the regulations added another level of uncertainty. SNAP recipients in Nebraska were allowed to purchase chocolate milk with artificial sweetener, but not diet soda. If a store gave you a fork, you could purchase a slice of cake in Iowa, but not a fruit cup. These are not insignificant details. They show how complicated and unevenly implemented the prohibitions had already become.
Five SNAP enrollees with actual, distinct medical needs were the plaintiffs who filed the lawsuit. Some mentioned the need for specific beverages to treat kidney diseases or Type 1 diabetes. The court’s skepticism may have been influenced by the USDA and the states’ rejection of those arguments as edge cases rather than considering them as proof of a more serious policy design flaw. A complete prohibition with no exceptions for medical conditions is a blunt tool.
On social media, Agriculture Secretary Rollins swiftly retaliated, referring to Jackson as a “activist judge” and promising the administration would not back down. There is a perception that the administration believes this is a battle worth pursuing, possibly by passing legislation that would provide USDA with more precise statutory authority to impose these kinds of limitations. That route is more difficult and slower. However, it’s the legal one.
This moment is especially noteworthy because it extends beyond the five states listed in the ruling. Thirteen of the nearly two dozen states that had received USDA approval for comparable SNAP restrictions had not yet implemented their prohibitions. The same legal reasoning, the same procedure, and the same faulty authority that the court rejected in this case apply to those states as well, according to advocates and legal observers, suggesting that this decision could act as a roadmap for future challenges.
Millions of Americans with low incomes are served by the $100 billion federal SNAP program. The argument over what it should and shouldn’t fund won’t go away. For the time being, however, the court has made it clear that an administrative decree cannot redefine food assistance. There are legal ways to pursue the goal if it is truly to improve public health and it is worthwhile to take that goal at face value, even if the methods are questioned. Everyone was reminded of that distinction this week by a federal judge.
