By Jeff Devine, Editor-in-Chief, Dale County Chronicle
WASHINGTON, D.C.—A federal judge has ruled that the federal government cannot prevent Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) recipients from using their benefits to purchase candy, soda, and other sugary beverages, delivering a significant setback to a nationwide effort to restrict certain food purchases under the program.
The ruling, issued Monday by U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson, found that the U.S. Department of Agriculture exceeded its authority when it approved state requests to restrict SNAP purchases of sugary drinks, candy, and other products. Jackson concluded that federal law already defines what foods are eligible for purchase through SNAP and that USDA cannot alter those definitions through administrative waivers.
The lawsuit was brought by SNAP recipients in Colorado, Iowa, Nebraska, Tennessee, and West Virginia, who argued the restrictions were unlawful and would create confusion and barriers for beneficiaries using food assistance. Jackson emphasized that her decision was based on the law, not on whether limiting sugary foods is sound public policy.
“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,” Jackson wrote in her opinion. “But what they cannot do is violate the law and their own regulations along the way.”
The restrictions were part of the Trump administration’s “Make America Healthy Again” initiative, championed by Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins and Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Supporters argued that removing sugary beverages and candy from SNAP eligibility would encourage healthier eating habits and help combat obesity, diabetes, and other chronic health conditions.
USDA had approved food restriction waivers for 23 states, with some already in effect and others scheduled to begin in the coming months. While the details varied by state, many sought to prohibit the purchase of soda, energy drinks, and candy using SNAP benefits.
Alabama’s Effort
The ruling comes just months after Alabama lawmakers approved Senate Bill 57, sponsored by State Sen. Arthur Orr, R-Decatur.
The legislation directed the Alabama Department of Human Resources to seek federal approval to restrict SNAP purchases of candy, soft drinks, energy drinks, and other sugary products. Supporters argued the measure would promote healthier food choices and help address Alabama’s high rates of obesity and diet-related illnesses.
During debate on the legislation, lawmakers pointed to studies linking excessive sugar consumption to chronic health conditions and noted Alabama’s long-standing struggles with obesity and diabetes. The proposal did not reduce SNAP benefits but sought to limit which products could be purchased with those funds.
While Alabama’s law remains on the books, the federal court’s ruling casts uncertainty over whether states can legally obtain and implement the waivers necessary to enforce such restrictions. Unless a higher court overturns the decision or Congress changes federal law, efforts to limit sugary food purchases through SNAP could face significant legal obstacles.
What Happens Next?
The Trump administration has not announced whether it will appeal the ruling. Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins signaled on social media that the administration intends to continue pursuing policies aimed at improving nutrition among SNAP recipients, though no formal appeal had been announced as of Tuesday.
SNAP, formerly known as the food stamp program, serves nearly 39 million Americans and remains the nation’s largest food assistance program. For now, the court’s decision preserves long-standing rules that allow recipients to purchase a broad range of food and beverage products, including candy, soda, and other sugary drinks, so long as they otherwise meet federal eligibility requirements.
