Judge Scraps Snap Junk Food Rules, Dealing A Blow To Maha

A federal judge on Monday scrapped a set of state pilot programs intended to restrict the use of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program money to purchase unhealthy foods.

U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson, an Obama appointee, wrote in her decision that Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins, who oversees the SNAP program, misapplied federal law in approving requests from states to allow them to impose limits on what participants can buy with funds from the nation's largest food aid program. Her ruling applies to Colorado, Iowa, Nebraska, Tennessee and West Virginia.

"With her solicitation and approval of the pilot projects in this case, the Secretary purports to waive not just a mere administrative or technical obstacle, but the very definition of 'food' as it was laid down by Congress," Berman wrote. "Neither the USDA nor the states can force this square peg into a round hole to avoid the plain language of the statute and the requirements of 2026(k)," referencing the part of the statute that addresses projects to help improve SNAP households' health status.

Jackson's ruling could jeopardize one of the biggest policy achievements of the Make America Healthy Again agenda. Rollins and Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. have urged states to submit food restriction plans, arguing that they will improve health outcomes and that federal dollars shouldn't be funding junk food. Kennedy also incentivized the states to apply by tying some federal rural health care funding to whether states had applied for a waiver to limit foods like soda in SNAP.

At least 23 states have applied for waivers that would allow them to limit certain foods in the SNAP program such as soda or candy, according to USDA's data.

The idea of limiting SNAP purchases to foods that are seen as healthy has been popular among some lawmakers of both parties for years. While many of the pilots deployed similar parameters restricting soda and candy, states have come up with their own definitions, leading to inconsistencies that might make a sports drink SNAP-eligible in one state but not in another.

Critics of the pilots argue that there's little evidence such limitations will improve beneficiaries' health, and that instead they create confusion and could discourage people from participating in SNAP altogether.