Judge Upholds SNAP Recipients' Right to Purchase Soda and Candy in 5 States

A federal judge has delivered a significant blow to the Trump administration's 'Make America Healthy Again' initiative by blocking its effort to let states bar SNAP recipients from using their food benefits to buy soft drinks and candy. In a ruling released on Monday, Judge Amy Berman Jackson declared that the Agriculture Department lacked the authority to approve such restrictions, effectively overturning the decision of multiple states that had sought to implement these bans.

At the heart of this dispute is the definition of 'food' under the federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). While the law explicitly excludes certain items like alcohol and tobacco, the administration's push to restrict soda and candy has raised questions about the boundaries of this definition. As Judge Jackson noted, Congress defined 'food' in a specific manner, and the Agriculture Department exceeded its authority by attempting to redefine or waive this definition.

This decision is a major victory for SNAP recipients in five states - Colorado, Iowa, Nebraska, Tennessee, and West Virginia - who had challenged the administration's efforts in federal court. The plaintiffs argued that restricting their access to these items would 'destabilize food access' and make it harder for individuals with chronic illnesses to manage their health. The ruling is likely to have far-reaching implications, possibly affecting the remaining 18 states that have been approved for similar bans.

Proponents of the 'Make America Healthy Again' initiative, championed by Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins, have argued that taxpayer funds should not be used to purchase 'junk food' that contributes to obesity, diabetes, and other chronic diseases. However, opponents have countered that such restrictions would unfairly penalize low-income individuals who rely on SNAP benefits and do not have access to healthy food options.

The ruling highlights the complexities of the SNAP program, which operates under a patchwork of state and federal regulations. As Katharine Deabler Meadows, senior attorney at the National Center for Law and Economic Justice, pointed out, 'This decision makes clear that the USDA cannot bypass the legal guardrails that establish how SNAP must operate across the country.'

The judge's ruling may provide a roadmap for future challenges against similar bans in other states. Gina Plata-Nino, SNAP director at the Food Research & Action Center, noted that many states relied on the same USDA process and statutory authority, making them vulnerable to similar legal challenges.

While the decision is a significant setback for the Trump administration, it is unclear what the long-term implications will be. The USDA has vowed to continue pursuing the 'Make America Healthy Again' initiative, but it remains to be seen how they will respond to this legal setback. One thing is certain, however: this is a complex issue that will continue to play out in the years to come.

As the nation grapples with the consequences of this ruling, one thing is clear: SNAP recipients in five states have won a crucial victory in their fight to maintain access to a full range of food options.

In a statement, Jeffrey Shinder, founding partner at Shinder Cantor Lerner, observed, 'The judge's ruling clearly shows that 'you cannot redefine the word 'food' in the SNAP program by administrative fiat.'

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

© 2026 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Copyright © 2026 CBS Interactive Inc. All rights reserved.