SNAP Recipients Win Bid to Void Purchase Limits on Soda, Candy
This article was originally published in Bloomberg Government. Read it here.
A federal judge struck a blow to the Agriculture Department’s attempt to restrict on which foods low income nutrition assistance program recipients can buy, saying the agency “sidestepped” federal law in rolling out the state-level policies.
US District Court for the District of Columbia Judge Amy Berman Jackson on Monday granted summary judgment for Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program recipients in five states alleging the Agriculture Department’s approval of bans blocking sugary food and drink purchases with federal benefits violated the Administrative Procedures Act.
The decision comes after five SNAP recipients from Colorado, Iowa, Nebraska, Tennessee, and West Virginia sued USDA in March, alleging the restrictions illegally redefined “food” eligible for purchase under the program and blocked SNAP users from buying products needed to maintain their health.
Jackson ruled the US Agriculture Department and Secretary Brooke Rollins exceeded their statutory authority, failed to engage in reasoned decisionmaking, and disregarded a mandatory public notice requirement when approving pilot projects in the five states. The statute the agency relied on to approve the pilot projects didn’t cover projects intended to improve SNAP recipients’ health, and the agency “sidestepped” the portion of the statute that sets out strict requirements it must entirely meet before approving such measures, Jackson said.
At least 22 states have gained USDA’s approval to block products they deem unhealthy at the urging of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who’s said state action gives him leverage to implement federal policies intended to reduce chronic disease rates by improving Americans’ nutrition.
Lawyers representing USDA argued the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 law enables the department to approve temporary pilot programs that explore novel ways of administering SNAP benefits in a memorandum supporting their motion to dismiss. The plaintiffs said USDA exceeded its authority by approving the pilots because the law’s text only allows experiments designed to make the delivery of food aid benefits more efficient.
“A policy governing what recipients may buy after benefits are issued is not a policy about how SNAP is administered or delivered. It is a substantive redefinition of the benefit itself,” the plaintiffs’ brief supporting their motion for summary judgment said.
An amicus brief from the states argued Congress gave USDA broad discretion to determine what pilot projects can cover and that purchase restrictions advanced SNAP’s overarching goal by incentivizing recipients to opt for healthier alternatives.
Shinder Cantor Lerner LLP and National Center for Law and Economic Justice represent the plaintiffs. The case is Aragon v. Rollins, D.D.C., No. 1:26-cv-861, 6/22/26.
