Food Stamp Recipients Sue Over Bans on Sugary Drinks
In suing to halt restrictions in five states, the plaintiffs argued that the Trump administration violated laws authorizing SNAP and governing changes in policies.
This article was originally published in the New York Times. Read it here.
Food stamp recipients sued the Agriculture Department on Wednesday over restrictions barring them from using their benefits to buy sugary drinks and candy, arguing that the limits are unlawful, create confusion and add to their difficulties in managing their health.
Since May, the department has approved waivers in 22 states that allow them to bar participants in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program from using their benefits to buy soda, energy drinks, candy or other prepared desserts. Top officials have hailed the restrictions as an achievement of the Make America Healthy Again movement, even as they have caused confusion among recipients and retailers alike.
Brooke Rollins and Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the secretaries of agriculture and health, have characterized the waivers as a step in tackling chronic disease and steering taxpayer dollars toward wholesome foods.
But in suing to halt the waivers in five states — Colorado, Iowa, Nebraska, Tennessee and West Virginia — the five plaintiffs who receive SNAP benefits argue that the Trump administration violated laws authorizing SNAP and governing changes in policies. The case was filed in federal court in the District of Columbia and brought by the National Center for Law and Economic Justice, a nonprofit that advocates on behalf of low-income people, and Shinder Cantor Lerner, an antitrust law firm.
The department has used the waivers to “backdoor in national policy that expresses the administration’s preferences around food,” Katharine Deabler-Meadows, a senior lawyer for the National Center for Law and Economic Justice, said in an interview.
The lawsuit adds that the Agriculture Department “authorized states to narrow the statutory definition of ‘food’ haphazardly without statutory authority or evaluation methodology, and without notice to or input from the people or businesses directly affected.”
“The practical effect,” the plaintiffs said, “is to destabilize food access for every SNAP participant in the affected states.”
For decades, the Agriculture Department under previous administrations — including the first Trump administration — had considered and rejected efforts for waivers, questioning the effectiveness and feasibility of bans on junk food and hesitant to cross both anti-poverty groups and corporate interests. In May, the Trump administration reversed course and began approving state waivers rapidly.
But, the lawsuit argues, the Trump administration had no authority to do so. It notes that the relevant passage in the Food and Nutrition Act, which authorizes SNAP, allows for pilot projects that test changes to “increase the efficiency” of SNAP and “improve the delivery” of benefits. Disallowing certain foods does neither, the lawsuit said.
Editors’ Picks
How to Prepare for Your First River CruiseDoes a Powerhouse London Indian Restaurant Work in Las Vegas?Why Is Everyone Saying the Word Tranche?
The Agriculture Department also failed to provide notice and options for public comment, violating the Administrative Procedure Act, the complaint added. Under the law, which is frequently cited in cases filed against the Trump administration, agencies must follow certain steps and be transparent about its thinking before making regulations.
The violations of the Administrative Procedure Act are “quite clear,” Ms. Deabler-Meadows said. “You can never predict what’s going to happen, but we think it’s quite persuasive that these waivers should never have been approved.”
