A federal judge has struck down a government attempt to restrict what participants in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program can purchase, ruling that the USDA cannot block the use of benefits for candy, soda, and other sugary drinks. The decision blocks a proposed rule that would have banned such items from the nation's largest food aid program. The ruling came just hours after the policy was announced, signaling a rapid judicial rebuke.
The case centers on whether the USDA has the authority to define permissible purchases under SNAP beyond basic nutritional guidelines. Critics of the ban argued it overstepped the agency's statutory mandate and unfairly targeted low-income households. The judge's decision emphasizes that Congress, not the executive branch, holds the power to set such restrictions.
SNAP serves roughly 40 million Americans and accounts for tens of billions in annual federal spending. The proposed ban would have removed items like soda, candy, and other sugar-sweetened products from the list of eligible purchases. The ruling leaves the longstanding policy intact, under which recipients may buy almost any food item except alcohol, tobacco, and hot prepared foods.
Health advocates warn the decision perpetuates diet-related diseases among vulnerable populations, where obesity and diabetes rates are highest. Yet anti-hunger groups counter that restricting choices stigmatizes participants and ignores the root causes of food insecurity. The battlefield now shifts to Congress, where some lawmakers have already introduced bills to empower the USDA.
Opponents of the restriction, including the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, argue that SNAP already promotes nutrition through incentives for fruits and vegetables. They contend that banning sugary items would be ineffective without broader structural changes to food access.