Lawsuit Challenges USDA Approval of Candy, Soda Food Stamp Bans
This article was originally published in Bloomberg Law. Read it here.
- A group of low-income individuals sued the Trump administration, alleging new restrictions on foods they can buy using government benefits violate the law.
- The plaintiffs claim the US Department of Agriculture exceeded its statutory authority by approving the food restrictions and that the approved pilot projects lack adequate evaluation methods mandated under the law.
- The lawsuit alleges violations of the Administrative Procedures Act and the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008, and is seeking to postpone when the food restrictions take effect, reverse the approval of pilot projects, and block their implementation.
A group of low-income individuals reliant on federal food assistance sued the Trump administration Wednesday, alleging new restrictions to which foods they can buy using government benefits violate the law.
The US Department of Agriculture erred by limiting recipients of its Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program—also known as SNAP—from purchasing sugary drinks and foods across 22 states, according to the complaint filed in the US District Court for the District of Columbia.
Trump administration officials including Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins and Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. have encouraged states to seek approval for pilot projects to enforce the restrictions, making it a key pillar of the administration’s “Make America Healthy Again” movement, which emphasizes nutrition as a key method of fighting chronic disease. More than 41 million Americans use SNAP benefits to afford groceries each month on average.
“Individuals with chronic illnesses are losing access to products they need to manage blood sugar or sustain diets they need to maintain baseline health care needs,” the filing said. “Families must choose between using scarce cash to purchase restricted items or foregoing essential household expenses such as rent, utilities, or transportation. These harms are tangible, ongoing, and irreparable.”
The plaintiffs allege USDA exceeded its statutory authority by approving the food restrictions and claim the approved pilot projects lack adequate evaluation methods mandated under the law.
The lawsuit challenges five of those pilot projects in Colorado, Iowa, Nebraska, Tennessee, and West Virginia, and says USDA should have allowed the public opportunity to comment on the restrictions before they took effect.
The named plaintiffs are five SNAP recipients residing in those states who allege they need access to newly restricted food items to maintain their health and food security.
Colorado resident Nieves Aragon, for example, has Type 1 diabetes and relies on the program to feed herself and her son, but can no longer purchase the sugary drinks required to manage blood sugar levels during work, the complaint said.
“This is the first lawsuit challenging the waivers,” said Katharine Deabler-Meadows, a senior attorney at the National Center for Law and Economic Justice representing the plaintiffs. “Illegal restrictions on SNAP purchases are already in effect in eight states, and have been approved for future implementation in 14 more. These waivers are a significant overreach in authority by the administration, endanger SNAP recipient access to essential foods, and threaten the retailer participation that is necessary for SNAP to function.”
SNAP recipients are forced to guess which foods are eligible for purchase because states don’t provide comprehensive lists of ineligible items, and they lack a pathway to challenge a purchase denial decided by a retail cashier, the lawsuit said.
The USDA said in December 2025 it would involuntarily remove SNAP retailers from the program after proof of two errors under the new rules, a move plaintiffs allege threatens to “worsen food deserts.”
The lawsuit alleges violations of the Administrative Procedures Act and the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008. It’s seeking to postpone when the food restrictions take effect, reverse the approval of pilot projects, and block their implementation.
Shinder Cantor Lerner LLP and National Center for Law and Economic Justice represent the plaintiffs.
The case is Aragon et al v. Rollins , D.D.C., No. 1:26-cv-00861, complaint filed 3/11/26.
