U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson struck down the Trump administration's effort to let states bar SNAP recipients from buying soda, candy, and energy drinks with taxpayer-funded food stamps, ruling Monday that the USDA lacks authority to rewrite what Congress defined as "food."
The decision, issued from the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, halts waivers the USDA had approved in more than 20 states. The White House responded within hours, calling the ruling a temporary obstacle, not the last word.
The case pits a straightforward policy goal, stop subsidizing junk food that fuels obesity and diabetes, against a judge who says the executive branch overstepped its lane. For the millions of Americans who fund SNAP through their taxes, and the low-income families the program serves, the stakes are concrete and the question is simple: Can Washington attach common-sense strings to the benefits it hands out?
Jackson, who has served on the D.C. district bench since 2011 after her appointment by President Barack Obama, found that Congress had already spelled out what counts as "food" under SNAP. The USDA, she wrote, cannot waive or amend that statutory definition on its own.
In her written ruling, as reported by Fox News Digital, Jackson acknowledged the seriousness of the health crisis but drew a firm line on executive power:
"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 in the population in general and particularly the low-income population. 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 lawsuit was brought by SNAP recipients in five states, Colorado, Iowa, Nebraska, Tennessee, and West Virginia, represented by the National Center for Law and Economic Justice and the firm Shinder Cantor Lerner. Those five states were among the jurisdictions where the USDA had approved waivers restricting purchases of candy, soft drinks, and energy drinks with SNAP benefits.
The ruling is not the first time a federal judge appointed by a Democratic president has blocked a Trump administration initiative on procedural or statutory grounds. A Clinton-appointed judge recently froze Trump's Anti-Weaponization Fund, following a similar pattern of judicial intervention against executive action.
Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins did not hold back. In a post on X, Rollins called Jackson an "activist judge" and framed the ruling as a win for the junk food industry over American health:
"An activist judge just blocked our commonsense restriction on using SNAP benefits for soda and junk. SNAP is for food, not sugar bombs fueling obesity, diabetes, and skyrocketing healthcare costs for low-income families. Taxpayers shouldn't subsidize junk food and drinks at the expense of American health."
A USDA spokesperson reinforced the message, telling Fox News Digital that "the idea that taxpayer funds should not be used to purchase junk food should not be controversial" and vowing the department "will not be backing down from the fight to Make America Healthy Again, including for families and communities reliant on SNAP."
White House spokeswoman Anna Kelly went further, tying the ruling to the broader mandate voters delivered. She told Fox News Digital:
"Amid a chronic disease epidemic, President Trump was elected with a resounding mandate to Make America Healthy Again. 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."
That last line, "not the final say", signals the administration intends to continue the fight, whether through appeal, legislative action, or both.
The idea of restricting SNAP purchases of sugary drinks is not new, and it did not originate with conservatives. In 2011, then-New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg asked the Obama administration's USDA to let the city block SNAP recipients from buying sugary beverages with their benefits. The USDA rejected Bloomberg's request, citing that the proposal did not clearly demonstrate whether the restriction would actually improve health outcomes.
That rejection came from the same administration whose appointee now sits in judgment of the current effort. The irony is hard to miss. Obama's own USDA said no to Bloomberg on evidentiary grounds. Now Obama's judge says no to the Trump USDA on statutory grounds. The policy keeps losing in Washington even as the obesity crisis it targets keeps getting worse.
The Trump administration has pursued the SNAP reform as part of its broader "Make America Healthy Again" initiative, led in part by HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Kennedy and Rollins have traveled to multiple states to work with governors on restricting unhealthy food purchases and promoting better dietary choices. On March 28, 2025, Kennedy appeared alongside West Virginia Governor Patrick Morrisey in Martinsburg, where Morrisey held a letter of intent to request changes to the state's SNAP and food dye legislation.
The administration's approach has been to work state by state, securing gubernatorial buy-in before granting USDA waivers. More than 20 states had received those waivers before Jackson's ruling put the brakes on the entire program.
Jackson's ruling rests on a narrow but important point of law. Congress wrote the statute. Congress defined "food." The USDA, she found, cannot use its waiver authority to redefine that term, even in the name of fighting obesity.
The administration sees it differently. From its perspective, the waivers were not redefining food but setting conditions on how benefits could be used, a distinction that may matter on appeal. The White House and USDA statements both frame the issue as one of taxpayer stewardship and public health, not statutory overreach.
This tension, between executive initiative and congressional prerogative, runs through nearly every major policy fight in Washington right now. The same dynamic has played out in disputes over birthright citizenship executive orders and other high-profile legal challenges to presidential action.
If the administration is right that voters gave a mandate for healthier food policy, the logical next step is legislation. Congress could amend the SNAP statute to exclude sugary drinks and candy from the definition of eligible food. That would resolve the legal question Jackson raised and put the policy on firmer ground.
But legislation requires votes. And votes require political will. The food and beverage industry has deep pockets and long lobbying reach. Any member of Congress who votes to restrict SNAP purchases will face industry opposition, and likely accusations of being heartless toward the poor, even though the policy's stated aim is to improve the health of low-income families.
The administration has also faced friction within its own party on other fronts. Republican lawmakers have broken with the White House on multiple issues, testing the party's thin margins and raising questions about whether a SNAP reform bill could even clear a GOP-controlled Congress.
Several questions remain unanswered. The procedural posture of Jackson's ruling, whether it functions as a preliminary injunction, permanent injunction, or final judgment, is not specified in the available reporting. That distinction will shape the administration's options on appeal.
It is also unclear which specific states beyond the five named in the lawsuit are among the "over 20" that received USDA waivers, and what items beyond candy, soft drinks, and energy drinks were covered by those restrictions.
Fox News Digital reached out to HHS for comment on the ruling. No response was reported.
The pattern of judicial resistance to executive action is familiar territory for this White House. Whether the issue is funding disputes blocked by procedural rulings or SNAP waivers struck down on statutory grounds, the administration keeps running into judges who say the executive branch needs Congress's permission before it acts.
That is a defensible legal position. But it leaves a policy vacuum. Congress has not acted to restrict SNAP junk food purchases in the decades since the obesity crisis began accelerating. The executive branch tried to fill the gap. A judge said no. And low-income families, the people SNAP is supposed to help, are still buying soda and candy with taxpayer money while diet-related disease rates climb.
The White House says this won't be the final say. For the sake of the families caught in the middle, it shouldn't be.