Federal Court Blocks USDA Attempt to Let States Ban Soda and Candy from SNAP Purchases

For millions of Americans, the grocery checkout line is a careful balancing act of budgets and family needs. Over the past year, that routine has been complicated by a push from the U.S. Department of Agriculture to ban the purchase of soda, candy, and energy drinks using Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits. But on Monday, U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson halted the effort, ruling that the USDA exceeded its statutory authority. The decision restores standard purchasing rules across five pilot states and effectively pauses similar plans in nearly two dozen others, ensuring that shoppers won't face unexpected rejections at the register.[1][2]

The legal challenge was sparked by a wave of approvals granted to Colorado, Iowa, Nebraska, Tennessee, and West Virginia between April and August of last year. These states were given the green light to conduct pilot projects that would automatically decline EBT transactions for specific sugary items. The restrictions varied wildly—some targeted only carbonated soft drinks, while others broadly banned prepared desserts and candy. For shoppers, it meant navigating a confusing, state-by-state patchwork of grocery rules that threatened to upend the $100 billion federal assistance program and turn local cashiers into nutritional enforcers.[4][5]

In March, a coalition of SNAP recipients from the five pilot states filed suit, represented by the National Center for Law and Economic Justice (NCLEJ). The plaintiffs argued that the bans would destabilize food access and create dangerous hurdles for individuals managing chronic illnesses. For example, some plaintiffs noted that specific sugary items are necessary to quickly manage blood sugar drops, while others cited conditions like avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder (ARFID) that severely limit safe food options. The NCLEJ argued that the USDA was attempting to curb the fundamental freedom of participants to choose the food their families need to get through the week.[1][4]

In her 68-page opinion, Judge Jackson focused strictly on administrative law rather than the nutritional merits of the policy. She noted that Congress explicitly defined what constitutes "food" under the SNAP program, and the USDA cannot simply amend or waive that definition through executive action. "Congress defined what 'food' is supposed to be, and it did not authorize the agency to amend or waive the definition it enacted," Jackson wrote. She clarified that her ruling was not a judgment on whether restricting junk food is a good idea, but rather a determination that the agency bypassed the legal guardrails established by lawmakers.[1][2]

The court also scrutinized the specific statutory mechanisms the USDA used to justify the waivers. The agency had relied on a provision of federal law that allows pilot projects designed to "increase the efficiency" of the SNAP program. Judge Jackson rejected this rationale, noting that none of the state plans indicated how banning a bottle of soda would make the program run more smoothly. Furthermore, the court found that the USDA violated its own regulations by failing to post advance notice of the major pilot projects in the Federal Register, a mandatory procedural step meant to give the public a voice.[2][5]

The waivers were a cornerstone of the "Make America Healthy Again" initiative championed by Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins and Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Proponents argued that taxpayer funds should not subsidize highly processed foods linked to obesity, diabetes, and rising healthcare costs. Following the ruling, the USDA vowed to continue its push. Secretary Rollins took to social media to criticize the decision, stating that taxpayers should not be forced to fund "sugar bombs" at the expense of American health, and an agency spokesperson confirmed they would not back down from the fight.[2][3]

Beyond the political and nutritional debate, the ruling carries massive financial and logistical implications for the food and beverage industry. Data analytics firm Numerator had projected that if the restrictions rolled out across all states seeking waivers by the end of 2026, it could result in an $830 million sales loss for the soda, candy, and energy drink categories. Retailers were also caught in the crossfire. In West Virginia, where the ban went into effect earlier this year, over 2,000 participating retailers had already reprogrammed their point-of-sale systems to decline restricted items. Those neighborhood stores now face a costly reset as federal authorities unwind the project.[2][6]

Food access advocates lauded the decision as a victory against the stigmatization of low-income shoppers. They have long argued that SNAP recipients already face systemic hurdles, including food deserts and inflated grocery prices, and that dictating their checkout carts adds unnecessary shame to the program. By striking down the waivers, the court affirmed that families deserve a program that operates without the confusion of arbitrary, localized restrictions. "This decision makes clear that the USDA cannot bypass the legal guardrails that establish how SNAP must operate across the country," said Katharine Deabler-Meadows, senior attorney at the NCLEJ.[4][7]

The decision sets a firm precedent that any future attempts to narrow what low-income families can buy with EBT cards will face strict statutory scrutiny. While the USDA is expected to appeal the ruling, the immediate effect is a return to a uniform federal standard. For the 42 million Americans relying on the program, the ruling ensures that their benefits will continue to function as Congress originally designed, preserving their autonomy in the grocery aisles. If policymakers wish to redefine what counts as food in the SNAP program, they will now have to take that fight directly to the legislative branch.[1][6]