The fight over which states can bar SNAP recipients from buying soda and candy with their food benefits is now sitting in front of a federal appeals court, months after the underlying program hit a legal wall. The U.S. Department of Agriculture has appealed a June court ruling that stripped five states of the special waivers letting them restrict what a beneficiary can buy at the register. Filing an appeal does not undo the ruling and does not restore any state’s waiver by itself — it puts the legal question back in front of judges while the states involved, and the shoppers who use SNAP benefits there, wait for a resolution that could still be months away.
The Ruling That Triggered the Appeal
The case is Aragon et al. v. Rollins et al., filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. On June 22, 2026, the court ordered that the government’s approval of five states’ SNAP food-restriction waivers be vacated and that the waivers’ implementation could not proceed, finding the agency had exceeded its legal authority in approving them. The five vacated waivers were not identical. Colorado’s would have restricted soft drinks; Iowa’s was written broadly enough to cover every taxable food item under that state’s own tax code definitions, carving out only food-producing plants and seeds; Nebraska’s targeted soda, other soft drinks and energy drinks, with a planned expansion to include candy on November 1, 2026; Tennessee’s covered processed foods and beverages such as soda, energy drinks and candy; and West Virginia’s applied to soda alone.
All five are now on hold under the same order, regardless of how narrow or broad the original request was. The USDA Food and Nutrition Administration’s own waiver tracking page confirms the order applies to Colorado, Iowa, Nebraska, Tennessee and West Virginia, marking each state’s row with the case citation rather than an active implementation date.
Free retirement updates: Social Security and Medicare change every year, and nobody sends you a memo. Our free Retirement Shield newsletter breaks down what changed and what to do. Get it free in your inbox.
An Appeal That Has Not Been Briefed, Let Alone Decided
USDA filed its notice of appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on August 21, 2026, roughly two months after the district court’s order. As of the most recent reporting on the case, the parties have not yet briefed the issues on appeal, according to a National Law Review analysis of the litigation published September 9, 2026. That means no appellate panel has reviewed the arguments, no oral argument has been scheduled, and no timeline for a decision exists yet. An appeal of this kind typically takes many months to work through briefing, argument and a written ruling, so the five vacated waivers are likely to remain paused well beyond this fall regardless of which side eventually prevails.
One State Didn’t Wait for a Final Answer
Not every state affected by the broader legal uncertainty has paused its own plans. Arkansas’s SNAP food-restriction waiver, which excludes soda, low- and no-calorie soda, certain fruit and vegetable drinks, other unhealthy drinks and candy from what can be bought with benefits, took effect on July 1, 2026 — just nine days after the district court’s ruling. Arkansas officials have maintained that the ruling, which named only Colorado, Iowa, Nebraska, Tennessee and West Virginia, does not apply to its own waiver, and the state proceeded on that basis rather than waiting for the appeal to play out. Arkansas’s position has not been tested in court the way the five vacated waivers were, so it remains a live legal question of its own.
Other State Waivers Are Untouched, for Now
The June ruling and August appeal apply only to the five states named in the case, not to every state that has sought permission to limit soda and candy purchases under SNAP. Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Texas and Utah all have waivers that have already taken effect on their own separate timelines, restricting combinations of soft drinks, candy, energy drinks and prepared desserts depending on the state. Those approvals are not part of the Aragon litigation and are not affected by whatever the D.C. Circuit eventually decides about the five states that are. A handful of others, including Hawaii, Kansas, Missouri, Nevada and Wyoming, have waivers approved but not yet in effect at all, with target dates stretching out into 2027 and 2028.
What Actually Changes at the Register in the Meantime
For a SNAP recipient shopping in Colorado, Iowa, Nebraska, Tennessee or West Virginia today, the practical effect of the ruling is that nothing has changed at checkout. Because the district court vacated the waivers rather than merely pausing them pending appeal, the restrictions those five states wanted to put in place never took hold, and a SNAP card in any of those states still works the way it did before the waiver was ever approved — soda, candy and other targeted items remain purchasable with benefits. That will stay true for as long as the appeal remains unresolved. A win for USDA at the D.C. Circuit would not automatically flip a switch either; it would send the underlying legal question back for further proceedings rather than instantly reinstating five different state programs, some of which had their own separate implementation steps still pending before the court order stopped them.
Why the Case Matters Beyond These Five States
The legal theory at the center of Aragon v. Rollins — that USDA exceeded the authority Congress gave it when approving these waivers — does not name every state with an approved or pending soda-and-candy restriction, but a ruling against the agency at the appellate level could cast doubt on the legal footing of similar waivers elsewhere, even ones not directly before the court. USDA’s own waiver tracking page still records the Aragon vacatur, the August 21 notice of appeal and the unbriefed status of the case as the current, unresolved state of the litigation, with no updated timeline for a ruling — the clearest sign that the five affected states, and the broader waiver program built around them, are waiting on the courts rather than on USDA.
This article was produced with the assistance of AI and reviewed by The Financial Wire editorial team.
More Financial Reading
- What really happens to your joint savings account when you die?
- The ideal retirement withdrawal rate so your savings actually last
Warren Cohen is a finance writer based in Phoenix, Arizona, covering personal finance topics including credit, banking, and beginner investing. He earned his degree in business administration from Arizona State University and began his career working in consumer finance, where he gained direct experience with lending and credit systems. He now writes for personal finance websites and fintech platforms, focusing on clear, practical content that helps readers make informed financial decisions.
