Federal Judge Blocks USDA-Approved SNAP Soda And Candy Purchase Limits
Federal Judge Amy Berman Jackson blocked USDA-approved waivers that would have barred SNAP purchases of soda and candy on June 22, 2026.[1]
The lawsuit was brought by SNAP recipients in Colorado, Iowa, Nebraska, Tennessee and West Virginia, who were represented by the National Center for Law and Economic Justice and the firm Shinder Cantor Lerner.[2] In her opinion Jackson wrote that Congress already defines what "food" means for SNAP and that USDA cannot "waive or amend" that definition or pursue health goals "under the banner of efficiency or administrative improvements." Fox News
USDA began approving state requests for so-called "junk food" waivers in 2025 as part of the administration's Make America Healthy Again effort.[3] By mid-term the department had approved 23 state waivers that mainly target soda and other sweetened beverages, and some states also included candy and energy drinks.[3]
The House-passed Hot Rotisserie Chicken Act, now attached to the broader farm bill, would create an exception allowing SNAP purchases of hot rotisserie chickens by easing the long-standing "no hot food" rule.[3] Lawmakers from both parties have backed soda and candy restrictions as well as the rotisserie exception, underscoring that nutrition rules for SNAP have attracted bipartisan support.[3]
Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins called the ruling the work of an "activist judge" and said "SNAP is for food — not sugar bombs," while the White House said the decision "will not be the final say" and USDA vowed it "will not be backing down." Fox News SNAP households spend about 9% of benefits on sweetened beverages and about 2% on candy, figures that have been central to the administration's nutrition argument.
The mainstream summary does not mention that the USDA's approved waivers were set to impact approximately 14 million SNAP participants across 18 states, highlighting the significant scale of the proposed restrictions on soda and candy purchases. This omission underscores the broader implications of the ruling, as it directly affects millions of low-income households who utilize SNAP benefits for food purchases. Additionally, while the mainstream account notes that SNAP households spend about 9% of their benefits on sweetened beverages and 2% on candy, it does not address the growing concern among experts regarding the health implications of these expenditures. Research indicates that rising obesity and chronic disease rates are linked to increased consumption of ultra-processed foods and sugar-sweetened beverages, particularly among low-income populations who may rely on SNAP for their nutritional needs. This context suggests that the ruling's implications extend beyond legal interpretations, touching on critical public health issues that the mainstream coverage does not fully explore.
Moreover, the mainstream framing of the ruling as a setback for the USDA's health initiatives does not capture the criticism from various commentators who argue that the decision reflects deeper tensions between public health goals and the political landscape surrounding SNAP. Some social media perspectives characterize the ruling as a defense of poor policy that undermines efforts to limit taxpayer-funded unhealthy items, suggesting that the debate is not merely about legal definitions but also about the broader societal responsibility towards nutrition and health outcomes. This multifaceted perspective is essential for understanding the complexities surrounding SNAP and its impact on public health.
Show source details & analysis (3 sources)
📊 Relevant Data
USDA has approved SNAP food-restriction waivers in 18 states, with restrictions scheduled to affect approximately 14 million participants starting in 2026.
18 states will limit junk food from SNAP benefits next year — WEAU
SNAP households spend about 9% of benefits on sweetened beverages such as soda and about 2% on candy.
SNAP Foods Typically Purchased-Summary.pdf — USDA Food and Nutrition Service
📌 Key Facts
- Judge Amy Berman Jackson issued a June 22, 2026 ruling that blocked USDA-approved waivers limiting SNAP purchases of soda and candy; the decision was reported by Fox News.
- The lawsuit was brought by SNAP recipients in Colorado, Iowa, Nebraska, Tennessee and West Virginia and they were represented by the National Center for Law and Economic Justice and the law firm Shinder Cantor Lerner, according to Fox News.
- In her opinion the judge emphasized that [what 'food' is for SNAP] is already defined by Congress and that USDA cannot 'waive or amend' that definition or pursue health goals 'under the banner of efficiency or administrative improvements' (Fox News).
- By mid‑term of President Trump’s second term, USDA had approved [23 state SNAP waivers] restricting so‑called 'junk food' — primarily soda and sweetened beverages, with some states also including candy and energy drinks (The Christian Science Monitor).
- Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. framed the waivers in August 2025 as part of the [Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) initiative], saying they would 'put real food back at the center of the program' (The Christian Science Monitor).
- Federal officials reacted strongly: [Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins] called the ruling the work of an 'activist judge' blocking 'commonsense' restrictions and said 'SNAP is for food – not sugar bombs,' White House spokeswoman Anna Kelly said the decision 'will not be the final say,' and USDA said it 'will not be backing down' from the MAHA effort (Fox News; The Christian Science Monitor).
- The House‑passed [Hot Rotisserie Chicken Act], now attached to the broader farm bill, would allow SNAP purchases of hot rotisserie chickens by relaxing the program’s long‑standing 'no hot food' rule (The Christian Science Monitor).
- The debate has drawn support and proposals from across the political spectrum: [lawmakers from both parties] have backed soda/candy bans as well as the hot‑rotisserie exception, showing SNAP nutrition restrictions and exceptions are advancing in both red and blue states (The Christian Science Monitor).
📰 Source Timeline (3)
Follow how coverage of this story developed over time
- The Christian Science Monitor piece confirms that by less than halfway through President Trump's second term, USDA had approved 23 state SNAP waivers restricting 'junk food,' primarily soda and sweetened beverages, with some states also including candy and energy drinks.
- Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. publicly framed the waivers in August 2025 as part of the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) initiative, saying they would 'put real food back at the center of the program.'
- USDA, in a statement to the Monitor after Judge Amy Berman Jackson's June 22, 2026 ruling, reiterated it 'will not be backing down from the fight to Make America Healthy Again, including for families and communities reliant on SNAP.'
- The article details that the House-passed Hot Rotisserie Chicken Act, now attached to the broader farm bill, would newly allow SNAP purchases of hot rotisserie chickens by relaxing the program’s long-standing 'no hot food' rule.
- The piece underscores that lawmakers from both parties have supported soda/candy bans and the hot-rotisserie exception, illustrating that SNAP nutrition restrictions and exceptions are now being advanced in both red and blue states.
- The Fox News article confirms that Judge Amy Berman Jackson’s June 22, 2026 ruling was issued in a case brought by SNAP recipients in Colorado, Iowa, Nebraska, Tennessee and West Virginia, represented by the National Center for Law and Economic Justice and law firm Shinder Cantor Lerner.
- Jackson’s opinion is quoted emphasizing that Congress has already defined what 'food' is for SNAP and that USDA cannot 'waive or amend' that definition or pursue health goals 'under the banner of efficiency or administrative improvements.'
- The article adds on-the-record reactions from Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins, who called the ruling an 'activist judge' blocking 'commonsense' restrictions and reiterated that 'SNAP is for food – not sugar bombs,' and from a USDA spokesperson stating the department 'will not be backing down' from its Make America Healthy Again initiative.
- White House spokeswoman Anna Kelly framed the decision as a setback to President Trump’s 'Make America Healthy Again' agenda but said it 'will not be the final say on the matter.'
- The piece specifies that USDA has approved SNAP food-restriction waivers in 'over 20 states,' providing a broader scope figure for the waiver policy beyond the five plaintiff states named in the case.