Trump Administration Sued over SNAP Food Restriction Waivers
Lawsuit targets unlawful food restriction waivers that have imposed significant burdens on SNAP recipients and retailers in multiple states
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: March 11, 2026
Contact:
- Patrick Fowler, Communications Strategist, NCLEJ | fowler@nclej.org
Washington, D.C.: The National Center for Law and Economic Justice and Shinder Cantor Lerner are challenging the USDA over their unlawful attempt to scale back the SNAP program through waivers that restrict the type of food that can be purchased with SNAP benefits.
The lawsuit asks the Court to enjoin the USDA’s unlawful food restriction waivers in Colorado, Iowa, West Virginia, Tennessee, and Nebraska.
Read the lawsuit challenging the legality of the food restriction waivers here.
Background:
For more than 60 years, a simple and stable definition of “food” has allowed SNAP participants to buy the groceries they need without confusion or complication. But under the current administration, the USDA has taken steps to scale back SNAP benefits by granting food restriction waivers that allow twenty two states to alter the definition of “food” and significantly curtail the freedom of SNAP participants to choose to purchase the food they, or their families, need.
These food restriction waivers were introduced under a provision that allows for experimental “demonstration projects” to test changes to improve SNAP and better support SNAP recipients. Regulations require the USDA to provide notice and allow public comment before approval of new demonstration projects. The USDA did not provide such opportunity and is not using these waivers to improve SNAP or better support SNAP recipients, but rather as a backdoor method to restrict the program.
USDA’s approval of these food restriction waivers violated the Administrative Procedure Act. These unlawful food restriction waivers are depriving SNAP recipients of access to the food they need, threatening their health and welfare, while imposing significant burdens on retailers.
While the waivers vary in the specific products they restrict, many target candy, snack foods, and soft drinks while only providing vague, complicated, and counter-intuitive definitions for these categories. In one example, Iowa state regulations consider a breakfast bar that contains “whole grain” but not “flour” to be candy but does not consider a box of chocolate that lists flour as an ingredient to be candy. This sort of ambiguity is a feature of every food restriction waiver and creates confusion for SNAP recipients and retailers alike.
“I am finding Iowa’s food restriction waiver extremely complicated to navigate,” said Marc Craig, a plaintiff from Iowa. “When I shop for food, I have to read the ingredient list on everything I buy to try to figure out if I can use SNAP to buy it. I still get to the register only to be told I cannot use SNAP to buy everything I have selected.”
Troublingly, these food restriction waivers prevent SNAP recipients from purchasing foods they require to manage chronic health conditions. “I would have told USDA that many people have medical or personal reasons for the foods and drinks they choose,” said Nieves Aragon, a plaintiff from Colorado who lives with Type 1 diabetes. “For me, certain drinks can be lifesaving. When my blood sugar drops, I need something like juice or a sugary drink immediately to raise it and prevent a dangerous situation.”
Food restriction waivers also risk worsening food deserts in low-income communities. SNAP participating retailers risk removal from the program if they are determined to have accepted SNAP benefits as payment for restricted foods—even if they made an honest mistake. Because the waivers fail to provide clear definitions for restricted foods, retailers are at high risk of making mistakes and losing their status as SNAP retailers.
Likewise, smaller retailers who do not have the administrative and financial resources to navigate ambiguous food restrictions may choose to withdraw from participation in SNAP altogether. The withdrawal of food retailers from participation in SNAP will deprive low-income people of locations where they may use SNAP benefits and worsen food insecurity.
“Had the USDA followed proper notice and comment procedure as required by law, SNAP recipients, retailers, and advocates would have sounded the alarm on the significant harms that these food restrictions create for low-income people who rely on SNAP,” said Katharine Deabler-Meadows, Senior Attorney at NCLEJ. “Once again, the Trump administration is making it up as they go along and disregarding the damage. We are asking the Court to immediately block implementation of these unlawful food restriction waivers.”
“SNAP is a critical lifeline for millions of families and households, and Congress has established clear guardrails for how the program must operate across the country,” said Jeffrey Shinder, Founding Partner at Shinder Cantor Lerner. “The USDA is attempting to bypass those strict guardrails by empowering states to curtail access to SNAP in ways that will create significant hardship on recipients and retailers. We urge the Court to halt this attack on SNAP, which threatens millions of individuals’ access to essential food assistance nationwide.”
###
The National Center for Law and Economic Justice (NCLEJ) advances racial and economic justice for low-income families, individuals, and communities across the country through ground-breaking impact litigation, policy advocacy, and support for grassroots organizing. Founded in 1965, NCLEJ protects access to critical benefits such as food stamps, Medicaid, and childcare; empowers low-wage workers, advocates for people with disabilities; and fights unlawful debt collection.
Shinder Cantor Lerner (SCL) is an antitrust focused boutique that litigates cases across the country. With offices in New York and Washington, Shinder Cantor Lerner focuses on antitrust law and complex litigation. SCL has an established track record of success litigating and advising on high-stakes bet-the-industry matters on behalf of plaintiffs and defendants nationwide. SCL attorneys are dedicated to shaping competition law in a manner that protects free enterprise while promoting economic justice.
