USDA blocked from excluding certain ‘junk food’ from SNAP benefits

SNAP out of it.

A federal district court ruled that the USDA was out of its checkout lane and beyond its legal authority when it restricted certain foods from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP.

In March, SNAP participants in several states sued the USDA over the approval of state-specific waivers that prohibited the purchase of certain items, such as candy and soda, through the SNAP program, claiming the agency lacked authority to decree which foods qualify for purchase.

Long known as food stamps, SNAP serves and supports approximately 42 million Americans.

Judge Amy Berman Jackson of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that the waivers violated Congress’s definition of “food” and unlawfully redefined which foods could be purchased through the food assistance program.

A judge ruled that the USDA was out of bounds in its attempts to redefine what foods are eligible for SNAP benefits. Getty Images

“Congress defined what ‘food’ is supposed to be, and it did not authorize the agency to amend or waive the definition it enacted,” the judge wrote. “It did not authorize the agency to cut types of food out of SNAP entirely.”

Under the federal statute, SNAP benefits can generally be applied to any food intended for home consumption with the exception of alcohol, tobacco, and hot prepared foods.

Jackson said that the USDA attempted to justify the waivers as a way to “increase SNAP efficiency.”

However, in her ruling, the judge found that “none of the state plans or USDA approvals indicate that the pilot projects might ‘increase the efficiency’ of the SNAP program within the meaning of the statute.”

Indeed, the National Retail Federation, a trade association, predicted longer checkout lines and more customer complaints as a result of the SNAP waivers.

Further, a report by the National Grocers Association and other industry trade groups estimated that implementing SNAP restrictions would cost US retailers $1.6 billion initially and $759 million annually thereafter.

“Punishing SNAP recipients means we all get to pay more at the grocery store,” said Gina Plata-Nino, SNAP director for the anti-hunger advocacy group Food Research & Action Center.

Waiver advocates, including Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., claimed these measures would ensure SNAP funds were not used to buy health-compromising, highly processed foods.

“We cannot continue a system that forces taxpayers to fund programs that make people sick and then pay a second time to treat the illnesses those very programs help create,” Kennedy said in a statement in December.

Waiver advocates, including Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., defended them, maintaining that these measures would ensure SNAP funds were not used to buy highly processed foods. Getty Images

According to Kennedy, these measures are part of a broader effort to reduce chronic diseases, such as obesity and diabetes, associated with sweetened drinks and other treats, a key goal of his Make America Healthy Again initiative.

Jackson made it clear that her decision is not a comment on the policy’s intent or other health-based initiatives, nor a minimization of nutrition concerns, underscoring that improving nutrition is not among the reasons the government can cite to waive program requirements.

“The Court’s analysis should not be taken as a comment on whether the pilot projects are a good idea or not. That is a question of policy that is not before the Court,” Jackson wrote in her ruling.

Jackson’s ruling immediately subverts state restrictions that were already in place or slated to begin under the approved waivers.

The court’s decision impacts waivers in Colorado, Iowa, Nebraska, Tennessee, and West Virginia, though it could also affect other approved SNAP restrictions that relied on the same legal and procedural decisions by the USDA.

Jackson maintained the FDA “will have to go back to the drawing board to design pilot projects that accord with [federal law].” 

She noted that while the USDA does have congressional authority to test certain types of initiatives aimed at improving health and nutrition through SNAP, the agency did not rely on that section of federal law, which has strict requirements, when it chose to move forward with the state waivers.

The Trump administration has not revealed whether it will appeal Jackson’s decision.

However, experts note that if the administration wants to permanently alter or prohibit SNAP purchases, Congress may need to amend the laws governing the program.

In an emailed statement, the USDA said it remains committed to promoting and protecting the ideals of the “Make America Healthy Again” initiative.

“The idea that taxpayer funds should not be used to purchase junk food should not be controversial,” the USDA said. “USDA will not be backing down from the fight to Make America Healthy Again, including for families and communities reliant on SNAP.”