A federal judge nominated by Barack Obama ruled Monday that the USDA cannot stop food stamp recipients from spending their benefits on candy, soda, and other sugary products, vacating approval letters the agency had already sent to five states seeking to launch pilot restriction programs.
U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson found that Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins exceeded her legal authority when she approved state requests to redefine what counts as "food" under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. The ruling lands a direct blow to the Trump administration's "Make America Healthy Again" campaign, which had secured buy-in from 23 states willing to test limits on junk food purchases made with taxpayer-funded benefits.
The legal question at the heart of the case is deceptively simple: Who gets to decide what "food" means under federal law? Jackson said the answer is Congress, not the executive branch. And until Congress changes the statute, SNAP dollars can flow toward items that public health advocates on both sides of the aisle have long argued contribute to obesity, diabetes, and heart disease among low-income Americans.
Jackson's decision, first reported by the Daily Caller, zeroes in on a procedural and statutory argument rather than the policy merits of restricting junk food purchases. The judge concluded that Rollins did not simply waive an administrative or technical obstacle when she greenlit the state waivers. Instead, Jackson found, the secretary's approval effectively rewrote the legal definition of "food" that Congress had enacted.
In her opinion, Jackson acknowledged the policy goals behind the restrictions but drew a hard line on process. The Washington Examiner reported the key passage from the ruling:
"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. But what they cannot do is violate the law and their own regulations along the way."
That framing puts the burden squarely on Congress. Jackson ruled that the USDA lacked the statutory authority to approve such waivers and also failed to follow its own regulatory notice requirements. The decision vacates the approval letters Rollins had issued to the five plaintiff states: Iowa, Colorado, Nebraska, Tennessee, and West Virginia.
While the ruling technically applies only to those five states, its reasoning threatens the entire initiative. Rollins had already approved waivers from 23 states that wanted to restrict sugary food purchases under SNAP. AP News reported that the decision effectively invalidates restrictions already in place or planned across all 23 states, since each waiver rests on the same legal mechanism Jackson struck down.
The pilot programs were a centerpiece of the administration's public health push, championed by Rollins and backed by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as part of the broader "Make America Healthy Again" agenda. States had volunteered to participate, and the political coalition behind the effort crossed traditional party lines. Red-state governors and blue-state health advocates alike had voiced support for limiting taxpayer subsidies on products with no nutritional value.
Jackson's ruling does not question whether the restrictions are good policy. It says the administration picked the wrong vehicle to implement them. That distinction matters for what comes next.
The department did not take the ruling quietly. A USDA spokesperson issued a statement signaling the administration intends to keep fighting, as Breitbart reported:
"The idea that taxpayer funds should not be used to purchase junk food should not be controversial. USDA will not be backing down from the fight to Make America Healthy Again."
That language suggests the administration views the ruling as a speed bump, not a stop sign. The USDA has multiple paths forward: appeal Jackson's decision, seek new legislative authority from Congress, or attempt a fresh rulemaking process that satisfies the notice-and-comment requirements Jackson found lacking.
The ruling fits a pattern that has become familiar during the Trump administration's second term. Obama-appointed judges have repeatedly blocked Trump administration policy initiatives on procedural grounds, creating a recurring dynamic where executive ambition collides with judicial gatekeeping.
The core problem for the administration is baked into the Food and Nutrition Act itself. Congress defined "food" broadly when it wrote the SNAP statute, and that broad definition has historically included candy, soft drinks, energy drinks, and other items that most Americans would not consider staples of a healthy diet.
Just The News reported that Jackson specifically found Rollins had improperly applied federal law when approving the state requests to limit SNAP purchases. The judge wrote that Congress defined what food is supposed to be and did not authorize the agency to amend or waive the definition it enacted.
That statutory framework has frustrated reformers for years. Previous administrations, both Republican and Democratic, have explored restricting SNAP-eligible items but ran into the same legal wall. The difference this time is that the Trump administration tried to move faster and through executive action rather than waiting for a legislative fix.
The approach mirrors friction points across the administration's agenda. Just as an Obama appointee struck down the administration's $100,000 H-1B visa fee for exceeding statutory authority, Jackson's ruling tells the executive branch it cannot rewrite congressional definitions through agency approval letters.
The five plaintiff states had requested permission to run pilot programs that would bar SNAP recipients from using their benefits to buy sugary drinks and candy. The programs were framed as voluntary experiments, designed to gather data on whether purchase restrictions would improve health outcomes among SNAP households.
Proponents argued the restrictions would steer recipients toward healthier choices without reducing their overall benefit amount. A SNAP household could still spend the same number of dollars at the grocery store. The only change would be that certain high-sugar, low-nutrition items would come off the eligible list.
Critics, including the plaintiffs who brought the lawsuit, argued the restrictions were paternalistic and that the administration bypassed required rulemaking procedures to impose them. Jackson sided with the procedural argument without weighing in on the paternalism debate.
The ruling leaves those 23 states in limbo. Governors who signed on to the initiative now face the choice of waiting for an appeal, lobbying Congress for a statutory fix, or watching the program die in court. The political will exists in many of those states. The legal authority, at least for now, does not.
Jackson's decision adds another entry to a growing list of federal court rulings blocking Trump administration initiatives on statutory and procedural grounds. The pattern has drawn sharp criticism from conservatives who see Obama-era appointees using narrow legal readings to frustrate policies that enjoy broad public support.
The dynamic is not limited to food policy. An Obama-appointed judge recently tossed smuggling charges against Abrego Garcia, calling the Trump DOJ's prosecution "vindictive." Similar clashes have played out over executive orders on birthright citizenship and other high-profile policy fights.
Defenders of the judiciary argue these rulings simply enforce the separation of powers. If the executive branch wants to change how SNAP works, the argument goes, it should ask Congress to change the law. That position has legal merit. It also has the practical effect of preserving a status quo that most Americans find absurd: taxpayer dollars buying two-liter bottles of soda and bags of candy for households that qualify for nutritional assistance precisely because they struggle to afford food.
The USDA's statement makes clear an appeal is likely. The administration could also pursue a formal rulemaking process with public notice and comment, though that path takes months and invites its own legal challenges. The fastest fix would be congressional action, but passing SNAP reform through a divided legislature carries its own set of obstacles.
For now, the 23 states that signed on to the junk food restrictions are back to square one. SNAP recipients in those states can continue purchasing candy, soda, and sugary drinks with their benefits, just as they could before the administration acted.
The ruling does not settle whether restricting junk food purchases is good policy. It settles, at least at this level, that the executive branch chose the wrong door. Whether the administration finds the right one will depend on how seriously it wants the fight and whether Congress has the appetite to take it up.
When a judge agrees the goal is legitimate but blocks the path anyway, the question stops being about health policy and starts being about who actually writes the rules in this country. That question deserves an answer that does not come from a single district court.
