SNAP Recipients Fight Back In Junk Food Crackdown
This article was originally published in Newsweek. Read it here.
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) recipients have filed a lawsuit against the federal government, arguing that new restrictions on what they can purchase with the benefits are unlawful and harmful to people who rely on the program.
Five plaintiffs sued the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) in federal court in Washington, D.C., on Wednesday, seeking to halt and then overturn SNAP “waivers” that block benefits being used to purchase foods considered low in nutritional value, such as candy and as sugary drinks.
The USDA told Newsweek on Thursday it will “not comment on pending litigation.”
Why It Matters
New food restrictions waivers have been approved in 22 states, with several already implementing the new blocks. The changes impact millions of low- and no-income Americans who depend on benefits to buy groceries.
The case challenges a policy shift backed by officials in the Trump administration that supporters say is intended to promote healthier diets. The plaintiffs argue the restrictions make it harder for families to access food and manage health conditions, while also creating confusion for shoppers at grocery store checkouts.
What To Know
SNAP is funded by the federal government but administered by individual states. While states have flexibility in running the program, the USDA must approve any changes to the types of food that can be purchased with benefits.
The new lawsuit argues the USDA overstepped its authority by approving the waivers without a proper protocol, such as seeking feedback, has not established an effective evaluation process, and acted without “reasoned decision-making,” violating the Administrative Procedure Act.
“By approving twenty-two so-called ‘food restriction’ waivers, Defendants have 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 complaint states.
Why Five Plaintiffs Are Fighting SNAP Changes
The five plaintiffs—who live in Colorado, Iowa, Nebraska, Tennessee and West Virginia—say the restrictions create real-life challenges and confusion for people who depend on SNAP benefits.
“Families must choose between using scarce cash to purchase restricted items or foregoing essential household expenses such as rent, utilities, or transportation, the lawsuit said. “These harms are tangible, ongoing, and irreparable.”
The complaint said the changes would restrict one plaintiff, a single mother with Type 1 diabetes, from buying “sugary beverages she relies on to manage her blood sugar while at work.”
Another with diabetes and chronic kidney disease, would be forced “to over-rely on high sodium convenience foods that exacerbate his health conditions,” the complaint said.
One plaintiff “needs caffeine during the day because of his insomnia” and energy drinks “are the only caffeine source that do not trigger his allergies,” the lawsuit said.
Another in Tennessee who is her 19-year-old daughter’s full-time caretaker, “will be unable buy most of the foods her daughter is able to eat” under the changes, the suit said.
A single mother to a 9-year-old girl used benefits to buy “groceries their family needs, including sodas to maintain the energy they need to balance parenting, work, and school,” the complaint added.
MAHA Push On SNAP
Twenty-two states have had waivers approved so bar, with purchasing bans already active in several. The full list of states with approved waivers is Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia and Wyoming.
The policy is part of a broader initiative promoted by Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins and Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who have supported the waivers as part of the “Make America Healthy Again” movement.
Supporters of the approach argue that limiting purchases of sugary and highly processed foods could encourage healthier diets among SNAP participants.
But the plaintiffs say the restrictions undermine the purpose of the program, which is designed to help low-income households access food. They argue the waivers destabilize food access and impose new barriers for families already struggling to meet their basic needs.
The plaintiffs are represented by the nonprofit National Center for Law and Economic Justice, which advocates for low-income individuals, along with a private law firm.
What People Are Saying
Marc Craig, a plaintiff from Iowa, said: “I am finding Iowa’s food restriction waiver extremely complicated to navigate. 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.”
Meegan Hollywood, partner at Shinder Cantor Lerner, the firm representing the plaintiffs, told Newsweek: “We are focused on litigating the case we filed yesterday and securing relief for the plaintiffs already before the Court. At the same time, we remain open to expanding the case to challenge similar waivers in additional states. SNAP serves as an essential support system for millions of families. The waivers create confusion at checkout and force retailers to apply standards that are vague and unworkable. A program that millions of families rely on cannot operate amid confusion and uncertainty. Our complaint details how these policies are already harming recipients in multiple states and undermining the very families SNAP is meant to support.”
Jeffrey Shinder, founding partner at Shinder Cantor Lerner, the firm representing the plaintiffs, said: “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. 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.”
What Happens Next
If successful, the lawsuit could upend the USDA and participating states’ waivers.
