Judge rules government can't stop SNAP dollars from buying candy and
sugary drinks
[June 24, 2026]
By GEOFF MULVIHILL
The federal government can't block benefits from the nation's largest
food aid program from being used to buy candy, soda and other sugary
drinks, a judge ruled.
Monday's ruling scuttles restrictions now in place or planned for the
federally funded and state-run Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program
in 23 states. President Donald Trump's administration has not said
whether it will appeal to a higher court.
U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson, who sits in Washington and was
nominated to the bench by former President Barack Obama, said in her
opinion that the ruling was because the federal government did not
follow its own definition of “food.” She said it wasn't a comment on
whether the restrictions are a good idea.
“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,” she
wrote. “But what they cannot do is violate the law and their own
regulations along the way.”
The restrictions are part of the Make America Healthy Again campaign
Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins and Health and Human Services
Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. have encouraged states to limit what the
food aid can be used to buy as part of the “Make America Healthy Again”
campaign.
They reason that soda and candy fuel obesity, diabetes and chronic
disease epidemics — and taking them off the menu would encourage
healthier food choices.
The Agriculture Department has given 23 states so far permission to
implement restrictions. Some have been implemented already, while others
are queued to take effect in the coming months and years.
At least one state that was set to limit soda and candy purchases
changed course earlier this year. Colorado's human services board voted
against implementing the ban after a March hearing in which SNAP
beneficiaries and advocates said people would face stigmas if they
mistakenly tried to use the benefits on prohibited items. They also said
the rules were confusing because they would have allowed buying drinks
with at least 50% fruit or vegetable juice, but not those with less.
While the goals are similar, the exact rules vary by state. Some wanted
to ban both sugary drinks and candy, while others only sought to ban
sugary beverages.
A legal challenge to the candy and soda ban — which includes items such
as sports drinks in some states — was filed by SNAP beneficiaries in
Colorado, Iowa, Nebraska, Tennessee and West Virginia.
[to top of second column]
|
SNAP EBT information sign is displayed at a gas station in
Riverwoods, Ill., Nov. 1, 2025. (AP Photo/Nam Y. Huh, File)
 Judge says government ignored a
definition of food
Jackson said the main legal misstep in restricting what SNAP
benefits could buy came because it ran contrary to Congress's
definition of “food.”
Under the law, SNAP benefits — formerly known as food stamps — can
be used for “any food or food product for home consumption except
alcoholic beverages, tobacco, hot foods or hot food products ready
for immediate consumption.”
The government can waive requirements, but limiting use of the
benefits to improve nutrition isn't listed as a reason to do so. Yet
when states asked the Agriculture Department to let them restrict
purchases, their requests included using alternate definitions of
“food.”
This may not be the final word
Rollins suggested on social media Tuesday that the administration
would “keep fighting to Make America Health Again,” though she did
not say directly whether there would be an appeal. Rollins said “an
activist judge just blocked our commonsense restriction on using
SNAP benefits for soda and junk.”
The case is among scores of challenges to Trump administration
policies that hinge on whether the administration has the authority
to change policies without congressional approval.
While it's a big program helping nearly 39 million Americans — about
1 in 9 — buy groceries, SNAP is normally relatively low-profile.
That's been different since Trump returned to office last year.
Under his big tax and policy law signed last year, more recipients
are subject to work requirements and states are being required to
pay a larger share of administrative costs — and could be on the
hook for benefit costs if their error rates are too high.
During a government shutdown last year, courts blocked the
administration from cutting off benefits. Meanwhile, Rollins has
said that there's rampant fraud in the program.
All contents © copyright 2026 Associated Press. All rights reserved
 |
