Federal Judge Blocks SNAP Food Restriction Policies

In a win for recipients of food assistance, a District Court judge said the USDA did not follow proper procedure in approving SNAP waivers in five states. 

This article was originally published in Civil Eats. Read it here.

June 23, 2026 – A federal judge has blocked policies in five states that restricted what foods qualify for food assistance, scaling back one of the Make America Healthy Again movement’s key wins.

Throughout the Trump administration, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has approved first-of-their-kind waivers that allow states to restrict what food items qualify for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). These largely restrict soda and candy purchases, but some were more wide-reaching and complex.

So far, the USDA has approved these SNAP waivers in 23 states.

But on Monday a judge in the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., blocked waivers in Colorado, Iowa, Nebraska, Tennessee, and West Virginia. In the decision, the court ruled in favor of plaintiffs, SNAP recipients in those states, who argued the USDA did not follow proper administrative procedure and was attempting to shrink SNAP through a patchwork of state laws.

Judge Amy Berman Jackson, an Obama-nominated judge, sided with the plaintiffs and said the USDA did not have the proper authority to approve these waivers and had failed to follow a notice period as required by federal law.

The USDA does have the authority to approve projects that improve program efficiency and administration. However, Jackson wrote, through these waivers the agency “purports to waive not just a mere administrative or technical obstacle, but the very definition of ‘food’ as it was laid down by Congress.”

The decision notes that the USDA is required to give a 30-day notice of pilot projects in the Federal Register before implementation, if the projects are expected to have significant impact on the public. The USDA’s statement that the projects would not have a significant impact is “directly contrary” to facts in the administrative record, Jackson wrote.

“The federal defendants and the states may have a genuine desire to improve the health of SNAP households by encouraging healthy choices at the store, and they can take lawful steps to meet those goals,” Jackson wrote. “But what they cannot do is violate the law and their own regulations along the way.”

Almost immediately after her confirmation as Secretary of Agriculture, Brooke Rollins suggested states request pilot projects for the program. Later, Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., directly encouraged states to apply for SNAP food restriction waivers and said the administration would approve them.

Over time, these policies became a celebrated win for MAHA leaders, including Kennedy. But SNAP recipients quickly reported challenges adapting to the new restrictions. Retailers have also pointed to inconsistencies in how the waivers define certain restricted foods and the challenges presented by the variability in each state’s policy.

Despite the early concerns and warnings, some states with waivers in place, including Iowa and Nebraska, were already considering expanding the restrictions.

Iowa has one of the more complex waivers, banning SNAP benefits for taxable foods, such as fruit, nut, and honey bars, pre-popped kettle corn, and dried fruit leathers. Even though the waiver is set for two years and has a required evaluation period, Governor Kim Reynolds recently signed a “MAHA” bill that directs the state Health and Human Services to request a waiver annually to maintain the food restrictions.

The bill also makes Iowa’s participation in Summer EBT, which sends food assistance to low-income families over the summer, dependent on the federal government’s approval of the food restriction waiver, Iowa Public Radio reported.

In a social media post shared Tuesday in response to the decision, Rollins said the administration will “keep fighting to Make America Healthy Again.” SNAP dollars, she wrote, should not be used for “junk food and drinks at the expense of American health.” (Link to this post.)