Food Stamps and Sugary Drinks Lawsuit: Ruling and States Covered

A federal judge on June 22, 2026, struck down the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s approval of state bans on buying soda and candy with food stamps, ruling in the food stamps sugary drinks lawsuit that the agency had exceeded its legal authority. The decision in Aragon v. Rollins vacated waivers the USDA had granted to Colorado, Iowa, Nebraska, Tennessee, and West Virginia, and its reasoning cast doubt on similar approvals in more than a dozen other states.¹²

What the Court Decided

Judge Amy Berman Jackson of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs in a 68-page opinion, vacated the five waivers, and remanded the matter to the USDA.¹

The heart of the ruling was a statutory-authority problem. The USDA had approved each state’s restriction under Section 2026(b) of the Food and Nutrition Act, which lets the Secretary greenlight pilot projects designed to “increase the efficiency” of SNAP and “improve the delivery” of benefits. Judge Jackson found the agency was using that provision to do something it does not authorize — redefining what counts as “food” under the program. A separate provision, Section 2026(k), specifically governs projects aimed at improving the “dietary and health status of households” and reducing obesity, and it comes with stricter requirements the USDA had not satisfied. The court concluded the agency had “sidestepped” the provision that actually applied.¹

Judge Jackson wrote that 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,” and that “neither the USDA nor the states can force this square peg into a round hole to avoid the plain language of the statute.”³¹

The court also faulted the USDA on procedure. Federal regulations require the agency to publish a Federal Register notice at least 30 days before implementing a pilot project likely to have significant public impact. The USDA never did so, arguing the projects would not have a significant impact — a claim the judge called “directly contrary to the facts in the administrative record.”¹

Judge Jackson acknowledged the government’s interest in encouraging healthier choices but drew a line: officials “may have a desire to encourage healthy choices,” but what they “cannot do is violate the law and their own regulations along the way.”⁴

Which States the Ruling Reaches

The decision directly vacated waivers in the five states named in the suit: Colorado, Iowa, Nebraska, Tennessee, and West Virginia.¹⁵⁶⁷

The scope of each state’s restrictions had varied. Iowa tied eligibility to the state sales tax code, banning any food or beverage subject to state sales tax. Nebraska restricted soda, soft drinks, and energy drinks. Tennessee covered “processed foods and beverages such as soda, energy drinks, and candy.” Colorado prohibited “soft drinks,” defined as nonalcoholic beverages containing natural or artificial sweeteners.⁸

Who Sued and What They Argued

Five SNAP recipients filed the lawsuit on March 11, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The case was captioned Aragon et al. v. Rollins et al., No. 1:26-cv-00861. They were represented by the National Center for Law and Economic Justice and the firm Shinder Cantor Lerner.⁹¹⁰

Each plaintiff described a specific way the restrictions disrupted their health or their family’s food supply:

Nieves Aragon, a single mother in Colorado with Type 1 diabetes, relied on sugary beverages to manage dangerous drops in blood sugar at work.
Marc Craig, an Iowan living with diabetes and chronic kidney disease who had recently been homeless, used SNAP to buy Pedialyte and Gatorade for hydration.
Nathan Fleming, unable to work in Nebraska because of a chronic spine condition and severe allergies, depended on energy drinks as his only safe caffeine source.
Amanda Johnson, a Tennessee caretaker for her nineteen-year-old daughter with autism and avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder, saw many of her daughter’s limited “safe foods” fall into the restricted categories.
Sarah Starks, a single parent, part-time worker, and full-time student in West Virginia, relied on soda to manage her schedule.⁸

The complaint raised three claims under the Administrative Procedure Act. First, the USDA had exceeded its statutory authority by using the efficiency-pilot provision to change the congressional definition of “food,” a definition that had remained uniform nationwide for more than sixty years. Second, the approvals were arbitrary and capricious: when the agency rejected similar proposals from Maine and Nevada in 2018, it cited administrative costs, retailer burdens, and the difficulty of distinguishing allowable from restricted foods, and the current approvals did not address any of those problems. Third, the USDA had failed to publish the required Federal Register notice or offer any opportunity for public comment.⁹⁸

Katharine Deabler-Meadows, senior attorney at the National Center for Law and Economic Justice, said the decision “makes clear that the USDA cannot bypass the legal guardrails that establish how SNAP must operate across the country. It affirms that families deserve a program that works without confusion.”¹⁰

How the Waivers Got Approved in the First Place

Before 2025, no state had ever received federal permission to restrict what SNAP recipients could buy beyond the statutory exclusions Congress had already written into law — alcohol, tobacco, and hot prepared foods.¹¹¹²²

The USDA approved the first wave of waivers in mid-2025 for Nebraska, Iowa, Indiana, Arkansas, Idaho, and Utah, followed on August 4, 2025, by West Virginia, Florida, Colorado, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Texas.¹² The agency gave states a standardized template and cited Section 2026(b) as the legal basis in each approval letter.¹ The first restrictions took effect on January 1, 2026, in Indiana, Iowa, Nebraska, Utah, and West Virginia.¹³

What Happens Next

Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins responded on social media, calling Judge Jackson an “activist judge” and vowing to “keep fighting to Make America Healthy Again.” She wrote that “SNAP is for food — not sugar bombs fueling obesity, diabetes, and skyrocketing healthcare costs for low-income families.”¹⁴ As of mid-2026, no formal appeal had been announced, though the USDA signaled it would not abandon the effort.⁷

The ruling turned on statutory authority, not policy, so Congress can undo it by amending the underlying law. Two legislative vehicles are already in motion. The Healthy SNAP Act of 2025 (H.R. 479), introduced by Rep. Josh Brecheen of Oklahoma in January 2025, would amend the Food and Nutrition Act to exclude “soft drinks, candy, ice cream, prepared desserts such as cakes, pies, cookies, or similar products” from SNAP eligibility.¹⁵ The 2026 Farm Bill (H.R. 7567) preserves existing SNAP food definitions in its base text, but Rep. Keith Self of Texas has offered an amendment that would categorize soda as ineligible nationwide. Heritage Action tagged the amendment as a “key vote,” citing a figure of $8.9 billion in SNAP funds spent on soft drinks in 2025.⁵

If Congress writes a restriction into the statute itself, the legal defect identified in Aragon v. Rollins disappears. Until that happens, the ruling stands as the first successful federal challenge to the wave of state SNAP food bans, and it hands opponents of the remaining state waivers a template for the next round of lawsuits.

1
FindLaw. Aragon v. Rollins, Civil Action No. 26-0861
2
Politico. Judge Strikes Down SNAP Junk Food Rules
3
NCLEJ. Judge Blocks Bans on Using Food Stamps for Sugary Drinks and Candy
4
CNN. Food Stamps Bans Blocked
5
Food Navigator USA. Farm Bill Leaves SNAP Rules Unchanged for Now as Amendment Fight Looms
6
FRAC. Federal Court Strikes Down USDA Approval of SNAP Food Restriction Demonstrations
7
USA Today. SNAP Soda Candy Ruling States Bans Restrictions
8
NCLEJ. Aragon v. Rollins Complaint
9
NCLEJ. Lawsuit Challenges USDA Approval of Candy and Soda Food Stamp Bans
10
NCLEJ. SNAP Advocates Win Lawsuit Against USDA
11
GovInfo. 7 U.S.C. § 2012 – Definitions
12
HHS. MAHA Monday: SNAP Waivers
13
National Association of Convenience Stores. SNAP Restrictions Raise Implementation Concerns
14
Spectrum News. SNAP Waivers: Soda, Soft Drinks, Candy Restrictions
15
Congress.gov. H.R. 479 – Healthy SNAP Act of 2025