A federal judge has blocked several state pilot programs that restricted Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) recipients from using their benefits to purchase certain foods, setting up a new legal battle over the future of welfare reform and government nutrition policy.
U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, ruled Monday that the Department of Agriculture exceeded its authority when it approved state waivers limiting purchases of items such as soda, candy, and other products classified by participating states as unhealthy.
The decision affects pilot programs in Colorado, Iowa, Nebraska, Tennessee, and West Virginia. According to reports, Jackson concluded that Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins improperly interpreted federal law when authorizing the restrictions.
In her ruling, the judge argued that Congress had already defined what qualifies as “food” under the SNAP program and that neither the USDA nor individual states possess the authority to substantially alter that definition through administrative waivers.
“With her solicitation and approval of the pilot projects in this case, the Secretary purports to waive not just a mere administrative or technical obstacle, but the very definition of ‘food’ as it was laid down by Congress,” Jackson wrote. “Neither the USDA nor the states can force this square peg into a round hole to avoid the plain language of the statute.”
The ruling immediately drew criticism from the Trump administration.
Rollins responded on social media, characterizing the decision as an example of judicial activism interfering with what she described as a straightforward public-health initiative.
“An activist judge just blocked our commonsense restriction on using SNAP benefits for soda and junk,” Rollins wrote on X.
She argued that taxpayer-funded nutrition assistance should focus on healthier food choices rather than products linked to obesity and chronic disease.
“SNAP is for food — not sugar bombs fueling obesity, diabetes, and skyrocketing healthcare costs for low-income families,” she added. “Taxpayers shouldn’t subsidize junk food and drinks at the expense of American health.”
The Department of Agriculture echoed that message in a statement following the ruling.
“The idea that taxpayer funds should not be used to purchase junk food should not be controversial,” a USDA spokesperson said. “USDA will not be backing down from the fight to Make America Healthy Again, including for families and communities reliant on SNAP.”
The legal dispute is part of a broader effort by the Trump administration to reshape SNAP and place greater emphasis on nutritional outcomes. The USDA has approved food-restriction waivers for 23 states, allowing them to prohibit the purchase of certain items, including soda and candy, with federal benefits.
Administration officials argue that the changes are intended to improve health outcomes among program recipients while ensuring taxpayer dollars support nutritious food choices.
According to USDA statements, the waivers are designed to give states greater flexibility in managing their assistance programs while encouraging healthier purchasing habits.
The fight over SNAP reform comes as the program continues to face scrutiny on multiple fronts. Questions about fraud and misuse remain a recurring concern for policymakers. A Government Accountability Office report released in late 2025 found that states were required to replace more than $320 million in stolen SNAP benefits between October 2022 and December 2024.
Federal prosecutors have also pursued high-profile fraud cases involving the program. In May, the Justice Department announced that a Maryland man received a 54-month prison sentence for orchestrating a large-scale SNAP fraud scheme and related offenses.
For now, however, the immediate issue centers on whether the executive branch has the authority to restrict what SNAP recipients may purchase without explicit congressional approval.
