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 the Agriculture Department lacked the authority to approve the restrictions.

Earlier this year, multiple states received approval from the Agriculture Department to enact the ban, with Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins backing the efforts as a way to strip foods regarded as unhealthy from the $100 billion federal program.

However, SNAP recipients in five states — Colorado, Iowa, Nebraska, Tennessee and West Virginia — sued the agency in March, alleging the move would "destabilize food access" for people on food stamps. They also argued that the ban makes it difficult for people with chronic illnesses to access food or drinks needed to maintain their health, including items used to manage blood sugar.

In her Monday ruling, Judge Amy Berman Jackson sided with the plaintiffs, writing that the Agriculture Department exceeded its authority when it allowed states to issue the ban.

"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 in her opinion. "It did not authorize the agency to cut types of food out of SNAP entirely."

SNAP provides monthly benefits to help low-income Americans pay for groceries. While it's a federally funded program, food stamps are administered by each U.S. state.

The Agriculture Department defended the effort and vowed to continue pursuing the "Make America Healthy Again" initiative.

"The idea that taxpayer funds should not be used to purchase junk food should not be controversial," a USDA spokesperson said in a statement to CBS News. "We will not be backing down from the fight to Make America Healthy Again, including for families and communities reliant on SNAP."

While the ruling only applies to the five states where the plaintiffs live, it could have implications for the remaining 18 states approved for similar bans, according to the Food Research & Action Center, or FRAC, an anti-hunger advocacy group. Thirteen of those states have yet to roll out their SNAP restriction rules, according to a FRAC analysis.

"Other approved SNAP restriction demonstrations relied on the same USDA process, the same statutory authority and many of the same legal and procedural assumptions the court rejected," Gina Plata-Nino, SNAP director for FRAC, said in a Tuesday blog post. "For that reason, the decision may provide a roadmap for future challenges."

Setback for "Make America Healthy Again"
The ruling is a setback for the "Make America Healthy Again" campaign championed by Kennedy and Rollins, who have argued taxpayers shouldn't foot the bill for foods and drinks that fuel obesity, diabetes and chronic disease epidemics.

"We cannot continue a system that forces taxpayers to fund programs that make people sick and then pay a second time to treat the illnesses those very programs help create," Kennedy said in a December statement.

So far, the Agriculture Department has permitted 23 states to implement restrictions through waivers that allowed them to block SNAP recipients from buying certain food and beverages that are normally allowed under federal law.

The Food and Nutrition Act, which governs SNAP, allows food stamps to be used for "any food or food product intended for human consumption," except for alcohol and ready-to-eat hot foods. The law also bars SNAP recipients from using benefits to buy tobacco.

"This decision makes clear that the USDA cannot bypass the legal guardrails that establish how SNAP must operate across the country," Katharine Deabler Meadows, senior attorney at the National Center for Law and Economic Justice (NCLEJ), said in a statement.

NCLEJ, a nonprofit, is representing the plaintiffs in the case alongside Shinder Cantor Lerner, a law firm.

The judge's ruling clearly shows that "you cannot redefine the word 'food' in the SNAP program by administrative fiat," Jeffrey Shinder, founding partner at Shinder Cantor Lerner, said in a statement to CBS News.

NCLEJ argued that the complex eligibility restrictions sparked confusion among retailers and SNAP recipients.

In some states, the restrictions seemed counterintuitive, advocates said. In Nebraska, for instance, SNAP recipients could buy chocolate milk with artificial sweetener, but not diet soda with artificial sweetener, according to Plata-Nino.

Meanwhile, in Iowa, SNAP recipients could buy a piece of cake with a retailer-provided fork, but not a fruit cup with a retailer-provided fork, she added.

Source