Judge blocks SNAP candy-and-soda bans in 23 states

A federal judge in Washington has blocked a Trump administration-backed effort that would have let states restrict SNAP purchases of candy and sugary drinks, halting the policy in 23 states.

U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson ruled on June 23, 2026, that the federal government could not use the waiver process to stop SNAP recipients from buying those items. She said the restrictions conflicted with Congress’s definition of food and went beyond what the agencies were authorized to do.

The decision is a major setback for a food-policy campaign tied to the administration’s “Make America Healthy Again” agenda. Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins and Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. had publicly supported state efforts to narrow what SNAP benefits can buy.

SNAP is the nation’s largest food aid program and serves nearly 39 million Americans, or about 1 in 9 people, according to AP. The ruling keeps in place the long-standing ability of recipients to use benefits for candy, soda and other sugary drinks unless the law changes.

What the judge decided

Jackson blocked current and planned restrictions in 23 states after finding that the federal government did not have authority to redefine food through waivers. AP reported that the judge concluded the limits clashed with Congress’s own definition of food under SNAP.

That legal reasoning strikes at the main mechanism the administration and participating states were using to advance the policy. The ruling suggests that agency approval alone is not enough to impose broad new limits on what low-income families can purchase with federal food aid.

The case matters well beyond the specific products at issue. It tests whether executive agencies can use waiver authority to reshape the SNAP benefit structure without a new act of Congress.

How the policy fight developed

States had been seeking USDA waivers to restrict certain SNAP purchases as part of a broader public-health push. The rules varied from state to state, with some aiming at candy and sugary drinks and others focusing more narrowly on sugary beverages.

That patchwork drew scrutiny because the restrictions were being rolled out unevenly and, in some places, were still in the planning stages when the court intervened. The AP account said the ruling now covers both current and planned limits in 23 states.

The policy effort became closely tied to the White House’s MAHA campaign, which framed the restrictions as a way to steer households toward healthier purchases. Supporters argued that federal nutrition programs should promote better food choices, while critics said the rules were confusing and stigmatizing.

A Washington Post report earlier this year described the rollout as mixed and quoted an HHS spokesman saying Kennedy supported state efforts to pursue SNAP waivers that prioritize healthier food options. That background helps explain why the administration viewed the states’ requests as part of a broader health agenda rather than a narrow food-policy dispute.

The broader stakes

The ruling affects billions of dollars in SNAP benefits across the covered states because it preserves the current set of eligible purchases for candy and sugary drinks. For recipients, that means the program remains unchanged for now.

For the administration, the decision pauses a significant policy push that was meant to use state waivers as a route around congressional inaction. If the ruling stands, future efforts to narrow SNAP purchases would likely need a different legal theory or new legislation.

The decision also has implications for the states that had already approved restrictions and those that were preparing to implement them. They may now have to pause rollout plans, reassess their waiver strategies or wait for the legal fight to play out.

Advocates for the restrictions have argued that public funds should support healthier food choices. Opponents have said SNAP is designed to provide broad food access, and that federal agencies cannot redraw the boundaries of the program on their own.

What happens next

The administration has not said whether it will appeal, according to AP. That leaves open the possibility that the government could seek a stay while further litigation proceeds.

If there is an appeal, one immediate question will be whether the restrictions remain blocked while a higher court reviews Jackson’s ruling. Another is whether USDA or HHS issues formal guidance to states that had already been approved or were awaiting action.

The case also leaves unresolved how far the administration can continue using waivers to test nutrition policy limits inside SNAP. The core question is now sharper than before: can the executive branch narrow what beneficiaries can buy without Congress first changing the law?

For now, the answer in Jackson’s courtroom is no.