In Washington, a federal judge has drawn a firm line between executive ambition and legislative authority, ruling that the power to define what nourishes a family under federal food assistance belongs to Congress alone. Judge Amy Berman Jackson struck down the Trump administration's effort to let states bar SNAP recipients from purchasing soda and sugary products, finding that the USDA had reached beyond its mandate in the name of public health. The ruling arrives amid a broader national reckoning over who decides what the poor may eat — and whether the state's interest in health can override
Federal Judge Blocks Trump Administration's SNAP Soda Ban
Congress did not invite the Secretary to ignore its directives
Mark
Why does Congress get to decide what counts as food under SNAP? Couldn't the administration argue that's outdated?
Mimi
Congress wrote the law. The judge's point was that if the administration wanted to change the definition, they needed Congress to change it too. They can't just reinterpret it on their own, even for good reasons.
Mark
But the administration says it's about health. Isn't that a legitimate goal?
Mimi
It is. The judge didn't say the goal was wrong. She said the method was. The administration tried to use administrative power to do something that required legislative power.
Mark
So what happens now? Does this kill the whole initiative?
Mimi
Not necessarily. The administration says it won't back down. They already have waivers in over twenty states. This ruling blocks those specific ones, but they're signaling they'll keep trying—maybe through Congress next time, or maybe by appealing.
Mark
Why did SNAP recipients sue? Aren't they the ones who'd benefit from healthier options?
Mimi
That's the tension. Some recipients might want the restriction. But others saw it as the government deciding what they can buy—a loss of autonomy. The lawsuit was about whether the government had the legal authority to do it, not whether the goal was good.
Mark
Has anyone tried this before?
Mimi
Bloomberg did in New York. The Obama administration's USDA said no—they wanted proof it would actually improve health. That was 2011. Now we're back to the same question, just from the other direction.
Il Polso
- A federal judge delivered a significant legal defeat to the Trump administration Monday, ruling its SNAP soda ban exceeded the USDA's statutory authority.
- The blocked waivers would have prevented food stamp recipients in five states from buying soda, candy, and energy drinks — a restriction critics called paternalistic and supporters called long overdue.
- The White House and Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins pushed back hard, calling the ruling activist and vowing to continue the fight to remove what Rollins termed 'sugar bombs' from SNAP-eligible purchases.
- Despite the courtroom loss, the administration has already secured waivers in more than twenty states, and officials from USDA and HHS are actively working with governors to advance healthier purchasing norms.
- The ruling echoes a 2011 rejection of a similar Bloomberg-era proposal, suggesting the legal and political terrain around SNAP dietary restrictions has long been contested and remains unresolved.
In Washington, a federal judge has drawn a firm line between executive ambition and legislative authority, ruling that the power to define what nourishes a family under federal food assistance belongs to Congress alone. Judge Amy Berman Jackson struck down the Trump administration's effort to let states bar SNAP recipients from purchasing soda and sugary products, finding that the USDA had reached beyond its mandate in the name of public health. The ruling arrives amid a broader national reckoning over who decides what the poor may eat — and whether the state's interest in health can override the legislature's settled definitions of food.
A federal judge in Washington struck down the Trump administration's effort to restrict what SNAP recipients can purchase, ruling Monday that the USDA had overstepped its authority. U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson found that Congress had already defined what qualifies as food under the program — and that the agency could not rewrite those definitions by approving state waivers under the guise of efficiency or administrative improvement.
The waivers in question had been approved for Colorado, Iowa, Nebraska, Tennessee, and West Virginia, and would have barred recipients from buying soda, candy, and energy drinks. They were part of the administration's broader "Make America Healthy Again" initiative, which frames SNAP reform as a tool against obesity, diabetes, and chronic disease. The lawsuit was brought by SNAP recipients represented by the National Center for Law and Economic Justice.
Jackson's ruling was pointed: Congress had clearly defined the scope of permissible USDA experiments on food eligibility, and the agency could not sidestep those limits by invoking health goals under a different administrative label. The White House responded quickly, with Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins calling the decision the work of an activist judge and insisting taxpayers should not be subsidizing what she called "sugar bombs fueling obesity and skyrocketing healthcare costs."
The administration signaled it has no intention of retreating. The USDA has already secured waivers in more than twenty states, and both Rollins and HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. have been working directly with governors to encourage healthier purchasing behavior. A USDA spokesperson confirmed the agency would continue the fight.
The ruling carries historical resonance. In 2011, Mayor Michael Bloomberg made a nearly identical request to the Obama-era USDA, asking to block sugary drink purchases in New York City's SNAP program. That request was denied on the grounds that the restriction's health benefits were unproven — a precedent that now shadows the current administration's ambitions and suggests the road ahead remains legally uncertain.
A federal judge in Washington dealt the Trump administration a sharp legal blow on Monday, striking down its attempt to let states restrict what food stamp recipients can buy. The ruling came down from U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson, who found that the administration had overstepped its authority by trying to redefine what counts as food under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program—a decision Congress had already made.
The case centered on state waivers the USDA had approved in Colorado, Iowa, Nebraska, Tennessee, and West Virginia. These waivers would have barred SNAP recipients from purchasing soda, candy, energy drinks, and other sugary products. The restrictions were part of a broader White House initiative called "Make America Healthy Again," which positions SNAP reform as a central strategy in combating obesity, diabetes, and chronic disease. The lawsuit was brought by SNAP recipients themselves, represented by the National Center for Law and Economic Justice and the law firm Shinder Cantor Lerner.
Jackson's reasoning was direct: Congress had already spelled out what food means under the program and what kinds of experimental projects the USDA could test. The agency could not simply ignore those directives by claiming efficiency or administrative improvement as justification. "Congress set out clearly the type of experimental projects that could be tested to address the unquestionably serious health issues attributed to the rise of obesity," Jackson wrote, "but it did not invite the Secretary to ignore its directives by trying to advance those ends under the banner of 'efficiency' or administrative improvements."
The White House responded swiftly, signaling this was not the end of the fight. Anna Kelly, a White House spokeswoman, told Fox News Digital that the administration had been elected with a mandate to make America healthy again and that it would continue pushing real food at the center of SNAP. Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins was more pointed, calling the ruling the work of an activist judge and arguing that taxpayers should not subsidize junk food and drinks. She emphasized that SNAP is meant for food, not what she termed "sugar bombs fueling obesity, diabetes, and skyrocketing healthcare costs for low-income families."
The setback is notable but not necessarily final. The USDA has already secured waivers in more than twenty states, and both Rollins and Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. have been traveling to states and working with governors to encourage healthier purchasing decisions. A USDA spokesperson told Fox News Digital the agency would not back down from the fight.
This is not the first time such a proposal has surfaced. Michael Bloomberg attempted something similar when he was New York City mayor in 2011, asking the Obama administration's USDA to let the city block SNAP recipients from buying sugary drinks. The USDA rejected that request, saying the proposal did not clearly demonstrate whether the restriction would actually improve health outcomes. That rejection, more than a decade ago, now stands as a cautionary precedent for the current administration's ambitions.
Citazioni salienti
This administration has rightfully put real food at the center of SNAP to promote healthier options for families in need. This will not be the final say on the matter.— White House spokeswoman Anna Kelly
Taxpayers shouldn't subsidize junk food and drinks at the expense of American health.— Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins
Vuoi la storia completa?
Leggi l'originale su Fox News ↗
Politics & Governance