Judge blocks Trump SNAP soda/candy ban in five states, citing agency overreach
On June 22, 2026, Judge Amy Berman Jackson granted a preliminary injunction blocking the Trump administration's SNAP soda-and-candy ban in Colorado, Iowa, Nebraska, Tennessee, and West Virginia, ruling the USDA exceeded its statutory authority under the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008.
The Trump administration's effort to let states ban SNAP recipients from buying soda and candy with their benefits was blocked by a federal judge who found the USDA lacked legal authority to approve such waivers. Judge Amy Berman Jackson's June 22 ruling in Washington, D.C., halts the policy in five states — Colorado, Iowa, Nebraska, Tennessee, and West Virginia — that had received USDA approval to impose the restrictions. The ruling is another judicial check on the administration's push to reshape SNAP through executive action rather than legislation.
This policy was never about public health. Restricting what low-income families can buy with their own food benefits is paternalistic and punitive. The real aim was to shrink SNAP's reach and stigmatize recipients. The administration sought to bypass Congress, which has repeatedly rejected adding soda and candy to SNAP's list of ineligible items. Instead of expanding access to nutritious food through proven programs like WIC's fruit and vegetable vouchers or SNAP-Ed, the USDA chose a ban that hurts families who already struggle to afford groceries.
The ruling underscores a critical legal point: the USDA cannot unilaterally rewrite SNAP's eligible food list. That power belongs to Congress. The administration's approach also ignored evidence that such restrictions increase administrative costs, reduce retailer participation, and do little to improve diet quality. The better path is to strengthen SNAP benefits, support grocery stores in underserved areas, and boost nutrition education — not police what families buy.
The humanitarian alternative
Congress should pass the "SNAP Nutrition Access Act" which would: (1) maintain SNAP's current eligible food list while increasing benefits by 15% based on the updated Thrifty Food Plan; (2) expand SNAP-Ed funding by $200 million annually to support voluntary nutrition education; (3) create a pilot program for fruit and vegetable incentives at SNAP retailers, matching purchases up to $10 per month; and (4) require USDA to study the impact of any future purchase restrictions on household food security before implementation. This approach respects recipient dignity while addressing legitimate nutrition concerns.
Falsifiable predictions
What this entry claims will happen, and what data would prove it wrong. The Reckoner revisits these against current reality.
- The Trump administration will appeal this preliminary injunction within 30 days, leading to a D.C. Circuit review.
- Other states with approved waivers will see similar legal challenges from SNAP recipients or advocacy groups within 90 days.
Grounded in
Original source — excerpted
news Trump administration can't block SNAP recipients in 5 states from buying soda and candy, judge rules"A federal judge blocked the Trump administration's effort to let states bar SNAP recipients from using their food benefits to buy soft drinks and candy, ruling ..."