Judge Blocks SNAP Restrictions in 23 States, Citing Flawed Definition of Food

For legal professionals, this ruling is a stark reminder that even well-intentioned health policies must adhere to statutory definitions. Judge Jackson's opinion underscores that agencies cannot bypass Congress's clear language on what constitutes 'food' under SNAP, even when pursuing public health goals. The case may define the limits of executive branch health initiatives.

The sweeping attempt by the Trump administration to use food aid as a lever for public health reform has been halted by a federal judge, who ruled on June 22, 2026, that the government cannot block SNAP dollars from purchasing candy and sugary drinks. The decision by U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson in Washington strikes down waivers already granted to 23 states, immediately invalidating restrictions that had either gone into effect or were slated to roll out. The ruling is a significant setback for the 'Make America Healthy Again' campaign championed by Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins and HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., which sought to combat obesity and chronic disease by steering low-income households away from unhealthy foods.

“

District Judge Amy Berman Jackson in Washington strikes down waivers already granted to 23 states, immediately invalidating restrictions that had either gone into effect or were slated to roll out.

At the heart of the legal challenge was the USDA's authority to alter the definition of 'food' for SNAP eligibility. Judge Jackson concluded that the government had failed to follow its own statutory and regulatory framework. As she stated in her opinion, the issue was not whether restricting sugary purchases is good policy—it may well be—but that the agency cannot 'violate the law and their own regulations along the way.' This reasoning highlights a fundamental administrative law principle: even when pursuing desirable social outcomes, executive agencies must operate within the boundaries set by Congress. The judge’s appointment by President Barack Obama and her reputation for meticulous statutory analysis lent weight to a decision that is likely to be closely scrutinized on appeal.

The timeline of events shows how rapidly the MAHA agenda had been advancing. By early 2026, 23 states had obtained USDA approval to impose some form of purchase restriction, with several already implementing them. However, pushback had been building. In March 2026, Colorado’s human services board voted against a proposed ban after a contentious hearing where SNAP beneficiaries and advocates argued the rules would stigmatize recipients—for example, if a checkout mistake led to embarrassment. That local reversal foreshadowed broader legal challenges that culminated in this nationwide injunction.