Policing Poverty: SNAP Recipients Can’t Be Restricted From Buying Soda And Candy
Once again, the Trump administration has sought to punish and dehumanize poor people by screwing with their SNAP benefits, and, once again, a federal judge is telling the administration it can’t do it because it has no right.
According to Politico, on Monday, U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson shut down a program implemented by the administration of President Donald Trump, intended to restrict the use of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) money to purchase soda and other unhealthy foods. The program allowed state representatives to request waivers from the federal government, granting them the authority to impose limits on what SNAP recipients can buy with funds from the nation’s largest food aid program.
The judge’s ruling came after SNAP recipients from five states, Iowa, Nebraska, West Virginia, Colorado, and Tennessee, filed a joint lawsuit because those states “submitted requests to the USDA to conduct pilot projects” between April and August 2025, attempting to “waive the federal definition of ‘food.’” Essentially, Jackson ruled that the government, specifically, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), never had any authority to grant such waivers.
“Congress defined what ‘food’ is supposed to be, and it did not authorize the agency to amend or waive the definition it enacted. It did not authorize the agency to cut types of food out of SNAP entirely,” Jackson wrote. “It set out clearly the type of experimental projects that could be tested to address the unquestionably serious health issues attributed to the rise of obesity in the population in general and particularly the low-income population.”
Here’s more, via the Hill:
Represented by the National Center for Law and Economic Justice, a nonprofit focused on advancing justice for low-income families, five SNAP recipients from those five states had sued the USDA for implementing its waiver restriction pilot projects.
Jackson, an appointee of former President Obama, wrote in her order that, per USDA policy, the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008’s definition of “food” guides what SNAP benefits can purchase.
The USDA and its secretary, Brooke Rollins, issued approval letters for the states’ requests, according to the filing. Jackson said in her ruling that she was vacating and remanding these letters.
Politico noted that at least 23 states have applied for waivers that would allow them to limit certain foods in the SNAP program, meaning officials in at least 23 states are pretending to fight obesity by implementing policies that target only people who receive food assistance. It’s an attack on poor people disguised as a noble effort.
And, once again, shout out to federal judges for being among the only people who consistently stand between us and a federal administration that prioritizes ideology over the good of the people, one which will always prioritize the very rich over everyone else, especially the very poor.
SEE ALSO:
Federal Judge Blocks New Trump Restrictions For SNAP Benefits
Policing The Poor Won’t Make Alabama Or Any Other State Healthier
Policing The Plate: The Politics Of Texas’ New SNAP Restrictions