U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson, an Obama appointee, ruled Monday that the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which administers the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), lacked the legal authority to approve state restrictions on the purchase of candy, soda, and other foods linked to obesity and related health problems.
The decision covers Colorado, Iowa, Nebraska, Tennessee, and West Virginia.
Removing unhealthy foods from the list of items eligible for purchase with SNAP benefits has been a central goal of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s Make America Healthy Again movement. And Jackson’s ruling struck at the heart of it.
According to Jackson, Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins had “misapplied federal law” when she approved state requests imposing purchasing restrictions on SNAP recipients. She concluded that the USDA lacked the legal authority to approve those state restrictions in the first place.
Jackson’s ruling can be viewed here. She stated:
With her solicitation and approval of the pilot projects in this case, the Secretary purports to waive not just a mere administrative or technical obstacle, but the very definition of ‘food’ as it was laid down by Congress. Neither the USDA nor the states can force this square peg into a round hole to avoid the plain language of the statute and the requirements of 2026(k).
Politico reported:
Rollins and Kennedy have urged states to submit food restriction plans, arguing that they will improve health outcomes and that federal dollars shouldn’t be funding junk food. Kennedy also incentivized the states to apply by tying some federal rural health care funding to whether states had applied for a waiver to limit foods like soda in SNAP.While many of the pilots deployed similar parameters restricting soda and candy, states have come up with their own definitions, leading to inconsistencies that might make a sports drink SNAP-eligible in one state but not in another.Critics of the pilots argue that there’s little evidence such limitations will improve beneficiaries’ health, and that instead they create confusion and could discourage people from participating in SNAP altogether. [As if that’s a bad thing.]
According to USDA data, 23 states have applied for waivers so far.
Reuters summed up the case in layman’s terms. The Trump administration argued that states should be allowed to experiment with restricting junk food purchases to improve health and reduce diet-related disease.
The plaintiffs maintained that Congress has already determined what counts as food under SNAP, and neither the USDA nor individual states can rewrite those definitions without new legislation.
Jackson concluded that any changes and/or restrictions to eligible foods must be made by Congress. If Congress wants SNAP to exclude soda, candy, or other foods, Congress must change the law. USDA cannot accomplish that through waiver approvals.
The decision is undoubtedly a defeat for Kennedy’s MAHA agenda, but it does not necessarily end the fight. Jackson did not rule that restricting SNAP purchases of soda, candy, and other unhealthy foods is unconstitutional or unwise. Rather, she concluded that the executive branch lacks the authority to make those changes on its own. If Kennedy and his allies hope to remove such products from the program permanently, their next battle will have to be fought on Capitol Hill rather than through administrative waivers.
Congress should revisit this issue sooner rather than later. Americans are already footing the bill for the explosion in healthcare costs associated with obesity, diabetes, and other diet-related illnesses. Asking taxpayers to also subsidize the purchase of products that contribute to those conditions makes no sense. Lawmakers should be looking for ways to encourage healthier choices — not using federal dollars to subsidize unhealthy ones.
https://x.com/Badhombre/status/2069195018640785865?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
CLICK HERE FOR FULL VERSION OF THIS STORY