A federal judge has thrown out the Agriculture Department’s approval of state rules that had blocked Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program shoppers in five states from using their benefits on soda and candy. The ruling means households in Colorado, Iowa, Nebraska, Tennessee and West Virginia can once again buy those items with SNAP dollars today, even as the federal government fights in court to bring the restrictions back. For retirees, disabled adults and other fixed-income households who make up a large share of SNAP’s caseload, what matters is what the checkout scanner actually allows right now, not what a months-old headline implied.
Why Judge Amy Berman Jackson Struck Down the Five Waivers
The case traces back to March 2026, when a group of SNAP participants living in the five states sued the USDA over waivers the agency had approved for their state governments. Those waivers let each state carve certain items, mostly soda, energy drinks and candy, out of the list of goods SNAP benefits could purchase. U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson of the District of Columbia ruled that the agency had exceeded its authority, finding that Congress’s own definition of “food” under the Food and Nutrition Act does not give USDA the power to exempt categories of food from SNAP purchases. She noted that USDA does hold authority to run genuine pilot projects under a different, stricter section of the law, but that the agency had instead relied on a provision meant to “increase SNAP efficiency,” one that its own paperwork never actually tied to the state proposals. The agency had also skipped a required 30-day Federal Register notice before rolling the pilot projects out.
Jackson was careful to note that her decision said nothing about whether restricting junk food from SNAP is good policy, only that the USDA had used the wrong legal tool to do it, according to Food Dive’s reporting on the June 22 ruling. “Congress defined what ‘food’ is supposed to be, and it did not authorize the agency to amend or waive the definition it enacted,” she wrote. She vacated the five approvals outright, sending USDA back to redesign any future pilot under the section of law that actually covers it. Proponents of the waivers, including officials tied to the administration’s “Make America Healthy Again” push, argued the restrictions kept taxpayer-funded benefits from subsidizing high-sugar purchases; the ruling did not weigh in on that debate at all.
Free retirement updates: One number can cost or save hundreds a month in retirement. The free Retirement Shield newsletter surfaces the ones worth knowing. Sign up free.
What Actually Changed at the Register in the Five States
Because the court vacated the underlying approvals rather than simply pausing them, the state agencies that administer SNAP in Colorado, Iowa, Nebraska, Tennessee and West Virginia no longer have a legal basis to enforce their restricted purchase lists. Retailers in those states were told the point-of-sale blocks on items like soda and candy no longer apply, and SNAP households there can shop the same way they could before their state’s waiver took effect earlier this year. For a retiree or someone living on a fixed Social Security check, that restores the same grocery flexibility available to SNAP shoppers in most of the country, at a time when research firm Numerator had projected the restrictions could strip roughly $830 million in sales from the targeted categories nationwide by the end of 2026 had every approved waiver stayed in place.
That flexibility does not extend everywhere. The USDA’s own tracker of approved SNAP food-restriction waivers currently lists 18 states with active limits still in force, a separate group from the five affected by this ruling. That distinction matters, because a widely repeated claim that simply says “18 states are banning soda and candy” leaves out that these five states are no longer among any active restriction list; the true count of states currently enforcing a purchase limit is 18, not the 23 that had received USDA sign-off at some point this year. Checking the USDA Food and Nutrition Service’s own waiver page is the most reliable way to see which states currently enforce a restriction, since the list has shifted more than once this year and a state’s status can change again without much notice.
USDA’s Appeal Does Not Bring the Restrictions Back Yet
USDA is not accepting the ruling quietly. The agency filed a notice of appeal on Aug. 20 asking the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to review Jackson’s summary judgment, part of a broader push tied to the administration’s “Make America Healthy Again” agenda, as Feedstuffs reported in late August. Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins publicly criticized the ruling the day it came down, arguing SNAP dollars should not subsidize sugary drinks and snacks. But filing that appeal is only a request for review. Until the D.C. Circuit rules, or a court grants USDA a stay of the June 22 order, the five waivers remain vacated and the restrictions remain unenforceable.
That is a meaningful distinction for household budgeting. A household in Nebraska or West Virginia deciding what to put in the grocery cart this week is operating under the current, no-restriction rule, not a rule that might return if USDA eventually wins on appeal. Anyone in one of the five states who was told at checkout that soda or candy could not be purchased with SNAP benefits should know that limit no longer has legal force as of today, and should keep an eye on the appeal rather than assume the current rules are permanent.
This article was produced with the assistance of AI and reviewed by The Financial Wire editorial team.
More Financial Reading
- The ideal retirement withdrawal rate so your savings actually last
- How many CDs can you park at 1 bank? FDIC rules you must know
David M. Keller is a finance writer based in Columbus, Ohio, covering personal finance and consumer-focused economic topics. He earned his degree in journalism from Ohio University and began his career reporting on local business and economic trends for a regional media outlet. Since then, he has contributed to a variety of online publications, focusing on clear, practical coverage of topics such as cost of living, debt, and everyday financial decision-making.
