Federal Judge Blocks USDA-Approved SNAP Soda And Candy Purchase Limits
A federal judge blocked USDA-approved limits on using SNAP benefits to buy soda and candy in Colorado, Iowa, Nebraska, Tennessee and West Virginia on Monday, June 22, 2026.[1]
U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson said the Agriculture Department exceeded its authority under the Food and Nutrition Act by approving the state waivers.[1] Her order blocks the bans in those five states and restores the ability to use SNAP benefits to buy sweetened drinks and candy in them.[1] The USDA had previously approved waivers in 23 states, and the Food Research & Action Center said the ruling could undercut similar restrictions in about 18 other states.[1]
In 2025 the administration reversed decades of USDA practice and began approving state requests for waivers that bar SNAP money from buying soda, candy and similar items. Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins approved the first waiver for Nebraska in May 2025, and approvals reached 12 states by December 2025 and 23 states by early 2026. SNAP recipients filed suit in March 2026, arguing the USDA exceeded its authority under the Food and Nutrition Act.
SNAP served an average of 41.7 million participants per month in fiscal 2024, with federal spending of $99.8 billion. The court ruling could be appealed, and the outcome will shape whether other state bans survive or are undone.
The mainstream summary does not mention the broader implications of the ruling on public health, particularly regarding the higher rates of obesity and diet-related chronic diseases among low-income SNAP participants. Research indicates that prohibiting the purchase of sugar-sweetened beverages with SNAP benefits could significantly reduce obesity prevalence and lower new type-2 diabetes diagnoses, suggesting that the USDA's efforts aimed to address these health concerns through the proposed restrictions. A 2014 study estimated that such bans could lead to approximately 281,000 fewer obese adults and 141,000 fewer obese children, highlighting the potential public health benefits that the USDA's initiative sought to achieve. This context is crucial for understanding the motivations behind the USDA's actions and the potential consequences of the court's decision.
Additionally, the summary frames the ruling primarily as a legal issue regarding the USDA's authority, but social media reactions reveal a deeper frustration among some users who argue that the ruling forces taxpayers to subsidize junk food purchases. This perspective underscores a significant debate about the role of government assistance programs in addressing dietary choices and public health, a nuance that the mainstream account overlooks. The ruling's potential to shape future state bans on similar restrictions is also significant, as it could influence how states approach nutrition assistance programs moving forward.
Show source details & analysis (1 source)
📊 Relevant Data
SNAP served an average of 41.7 million participants per month nationwide in FY 2024, with federal spending of $99.8 billion.
Key Statistics and Research — USDA Economic Research Service
📌 Key Facts
- On Monday, June 22, 2026, Judge Amy Berman Jackson blocked USDA-approved soda and candy bans for SNAP recipients in Colorado, Iowa, Nebraska, Tennessee and West Virginia.
- Jackson held that USDA exceeded its authority under the Food and Nutrition Act because Congress, not the agency, defines which foods are eligible for SNAP.
- USDA had previously granted waivers to 23 states to restrict purchases of certain foods and drinks, and advocacy group FRAC says the ruling could undercut similar bans in 18 other states.
📰 Source Timeline (1)
Follow how coverage of this story developed over time