The ruling from U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson on Monday deals a significant blow to the Make America Healthy Again movement and makes it much more difficult for the Trump administration to try to force healthy eating habits.
“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 in the filing.
“The federal defendants and the states may have a genuine desire to improve the health of SNAP households by encouraging healthy choices at the store,” Jackson wrote. “But what they cannot do is violate the law and their own regulations along the way.”
The ruling only applies to the bans in five states: Iowa, Nebraska, West Virginia, Colorado and Tennessee.
But the legal fight could be a roadmap for challenges in other states. The U.S. Department of Agriculture has granted waivers to 23 states to let them ban unhealthy foods.
Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins on social media vowed “keep fighting to Make America Healthy Again.” But it's not clear if the agency will appeal, or look for other avenues to prohibit people from buying sugary foods.
SNAP dollars can be used to buy any food or beverage from a grocery store except alcohol, nutritional supplements or hot food, but there's nothing in the statute that mentions sugar.
The idea of policing the shopping carts of low-income Americans has never sat well with anti-hunger advocates, who argue it’s paternalistic and stigmatizing for low-income Americans.
Additionally, while federal data show sugary drinks are the leading source of added sugars in the American diet, nutrition experts have said there is limited evidence that shows SNAP soda bans lead to better health outcomes.
