SNAP Food Bans Lifted
Federal Judge Overturns Rules Restricting SNAP Food Purchases in Five States
A federal judge has blocked food stamp restrictions in five states, including Tennessee, ruling that the U.S. Department of Agriculture overstepped its authority. On June 22, 2026, U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson voided pilot programs in Tennessee, Colorado, Iowa, Nebraska, and West Virginia that would have banned SNAP recipients from buying items like soda and candy, according to Jackson Sun.
The ruling protects about 734,000 Tennessee SNAP recipients. The state's restrictions were set to take effect July 31, 2026. That deadline is now suspended, The Tennessean reported. In Nebraska, Iowa, and West Virginia, where restrictions had already started on January 1, 2026, retailers must now revert to allowing all previously eligible foods.
Judge Rules USDA Rewrote the Definition of Food
Judge Jackson ruled that the USDA did not follow the right legal process. The agency approved the state bans under a rule meant for administrative efficiency. But the states' goals were health-based, which requires stricter rules — including public comment periods that the USDA skipped, according to Patch.
Judge Jackson wrote that the USDA "purports to waive not just a mere administrative or technical obstacle, but the very definition of 'food' as it was laid down by Congress." Katharine Deabler-Meadows, a senior attorney at the National Center for Law and Economic Justice, said the ruling confirmed that "the USDA cannot bypass the legal guardrails that establish how SNAP must operate."
The MAHA Push That Led to the Lawsuit
The restrictions were a key part of the Trump administration's "Make America Healthy Again" initiative. Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins called SNAP benefits spent on sugary items "sugar bombs fueling obesity, diabetes, and skyrocketing healthcare costs." HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. argued that taxpayers should not fund "ultra-processed junk."
The push was tied to H.R. 1, the "One Big Beautiful Bill Act," signed on July 4, 2025. That law cut $187 billion from SNAP over 10 years. It also created a $50 billion Rural Health Fund. States that adopted food restrictions were more likely to qualify for that fund, according to Commercial Appeal.
Real People Were at the Center of the Case
Five SNAP recipients filed the lawsuit, known as Aragon v. Rollins, in March 2026. Lead plaintiff Amanda Johnson is a Knoxville mother whose 19-year-old has disabilities. Her child's restricted diet relied on some of the foods Tennessee sought to ban, according to Daily News Journal.
Advocacy groups also pushed back on health grounds. Some SNAP recipients with diabetes use sugary drinks to manage sudden blood sugar drops. A 2016 USDA study found that only 20 cents of every SNAP dollar goes toward soda, candy, and salty snacks — a figure that complicates the case for sweeping bans.
USDA Plans Appeal; 18 More States Could Be Affected
Secretary Rollins signaled the USDA will appeal the ruling. If the case reaches the Supreme Court, it could test the "Major Questions Doctrine," a legal principle that limits how much power federal agencies have on big economic and political issues. The ruling technically only covers five states, but legal experts say it gives a roadmap for challenges in 18 other states with similar approved waivers, including Arkansas, Texas, and Florida.
Roughly 13.5 million SNAP participants across all 23 states with waivers are now in legal uncertainty. Retailer groups welcomed the ruling. The National Association of Convenience Stores said the waivers made the program "more confusing" for stores trying to navigate varying definitions of which foods were banned, according to Commercial Appeal.
Sentiment
NeutralPublishers
7
Articles
5
Reach
7
