Federal judge blocks Trump administration-backed SNAP bans on soda, candy and other “unhealthy” foods

A federal judge blocked bans on using Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits to buy soda, candy, and other foods labeled unhealthy, putting on hold restrictions the Trump administration and several states had pursued. The ruling came Monday, according to The Hill.

The bans were part of a broader push connected to public guidance issued by U.S. health and agriculture officials. The Hill reports that Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins urged states to strip some foods from what can be purchased with SNAP.

Under the SNAP program, participating households receive benefits that can be used to buy eligible food items. The controversy centers on whether the program should be used to support nutrition goals through limits on certain products, or whether broad categories of consumer food purchases should remain available through SNAP rules.

The Hill characterized the dispute as contentious largely because the proposed restrictions would affect everyday grocery spending for SNAP households while also raising questions about how far federal health and nutrition objectives can go through state-level implementation. The court order means the restrictions at issue cannot be enforced at least for the states and policies covered by the decision.

Supporters of the restrictions argued that removing items such as soda and candy from SNAP would discourage unhealthy purchasing. Opponents said the approach risks turning SNAP into a tool for regulating individual food choices rather than providing assistance based on eligibility and need, and they challenged the legal and administrative basis for the limitations.

The next steps depend on whether the government or the states that implemented the restrictions seek further review. For now, the court’s block maintains access to the covered items through SNAP in the jurisdictions affected by the decision, pending any later rulings.

The case also highlights the continuing tension around SNAP federal-state boundaries, with states often playing a role in carrying out certain food eligibility decisions while federal health and nutrition priorities are influenced by the administration in office.