A federal judge appointed by President Barack Obama ruled Monday that the USDA cannot approve state requests to bar food stamp recipients from buying soda, candy, and other sugary products, halting a signature piece of the Trump administration's public health agenda in its tracks.

U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson, who has served on the D.C. federal bench since 2011, found that Congress already defined what counts as "food" under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. The USDA, she ruled, has no authority to waive or rewrite that definition, no matter how well-intentioned the goal.

The ruling strikes at the heart of the administration's "Make America Healthy Again" campaign, which had secured food-restriction waivers in 23 states. The lawsuit was brought by SNAP recipients in five of those states, Colorado, Iowa, Nebraska, Tennessee, and West Virginia, represented by the National Center for Law and Economic Justice and the firm Shinder Cantor Lerner. The White House made clear it views the decision as a temporary setback, not the end of the fight.

What the judge actually said

Jackson's ruling did not dispute the seriousness of obesity or diet-related disease. She acknowledged those concerns directly. But she drew a hard line on process and statutory authority.

In her written opinion, as Fox News Digital reported, Jackson wrote that Congress "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."

"But it did not invite the Secretary to ignore its directives by trying to advance those ends under the banner of 'efficiency' or administrative improvements."

The judge also found that USDA violated its own regulations by failing to post notice of the pilot projects in the Federal Register 30 days before implementation, as the Washington Examiner reported. That procedural failure gave Jackson additional grounds to block the waivers.

Jackson added a pointed qualifier. The federal government and the states "may have a genuine desire to improve the health of SNAP households by encouraging healthy choices at the store and they can take lawful steps to meet those goals," she wrote. "But what they cannot do is violate the law and their own regulations along the way."

The administration fires back

White House spokeswoman Anna Kelly responded directly, framing the ruling as an obstacle to a mandate voters delivered at the ballot box.

"Amid a chronic disease epidemic, President Trump was elected with a resounding mandate to Make America Healthy Again. This administration has rightfully put real food at the center of SNAP to promote healthier options for families in need. This will not be the final say on the matter."

USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins was blunter. She took to X to call Jackson "an activist judge" and cast the ruling as a defeat for common sense.

"SNAP is for food, not sugar bombs fueling obesity, diabetes, and skyrocketing healthcare costs for low-income families. Taxpayers shouldn't subsidize junk food and drinks at the expense of American health."

A USDA spokesperson echoed that tone, telling reporters: "The idea that taxpayer funds should not be used to purchase junk food should not be controversial. USDA will not be backing down from the fight to Make America Healthy Again, including for families and communities reliant on SNAP."

The pattern should look familiar. This administration has faced repeated judicial resistance to its domestic policy agenda, including a Biden-appointed judge blocking an immigration processing pause on similarly narrow procedural grounds.

A policy that polls well, and a process that doesn't hold up

Here is the core frustration for conservatives watching this play out: the substance of the SNAP restriction is hard to argue against on the merits. Taxpayer-funded nutrition assistance was designed to help low-income families eat. Not to subsidize two-liter bottles of soda and bags of candy.

The Trump administration, through Rollins and HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., had built real momentum. They traveled to states, worked with governors, and secured buy-in from more than 20 state governments willing to implement restrictions on sugary purchases. West Virginia Governor Patrick Morrisey signed a letter of intent to pursue changes to the state's SNAP program and food dye legislation alongside Kennedy as recently as March 2025.

But Jackson's ruling exposes a vulnerability that the administration's critics will exploit and its allies should take seriously: the USDA tried to accomplish through waiver authority what Congress has not authorized through statute. The Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 defines "food" for SNAP purposes. Jackson ruled that Congress, not the executive branch, holds the pen on that definition.

The judge's reasoning, as Breitbart noted, centered on the statutory text: "Congress defined what food is supposed to be, and it did not authorize the agency to amend or waive the definition it enacted."

That is a textualist argument. And it puts the administration in an awkward position, because textualism is supposed to be the conservative legal movement's home turf.

The Bloomberg precedent

This is not the first time a SNAP junk food restriction has run into a wall. In 2011, then-New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg asked the Obama administration's USDA to allow the city to block SNAP recipients from using benefits to buy sugary drinks. The Obama USDA rejected the request, stating the proposal did not clearly show whether the restriction would improve health outcomes.

That history matters for two reasons. First, it shows that both Democratic and Republican administrations have struggled with the same statutory constraint. Second, it underscores that the obstacle is not partisan judicial activism, it is the text of the law itself.

The Trump administration went further than Bloomberg ever did, securing waivers in 23 states rather than a single city. But the legal foundation was no stronger. And Jackson, whatever her political pedigree, issued a ruling grounded in the statute Congress wrote.

Courts have also blocked Trump administration initiatives on asylum restrictions in the D.C. Circuit, creating a broader pattern of judicial resistance that the White House must navigate.

Where this goes next

The White House and USDA have both signaled they will continue pressing the issue. Kelly's statement that the ruling "will not be the final say on the matter" suggests an appeal is likely, though neither she nor Rollins specified the next legal step. AP News reported that Rollins suggested the administration would "keep fighting" but did not explicitly commit to an appeal.

Several open questions remain. Does the injunction apply only to the five states whose residents sued, or does it reach all 23 states with approved waivers? What specific waiver mechanism did USDA invoke, and could a different legal pathway survive judicial review? And will the administration ask Congress to amend the statute, the one move that would resolve the legal question for good?

That last option is the one conservatives should be watching most closely. If the policy is as popular and as sensible as its backers say, and there is strong evidence it is, then Congress should be willing to put its name on it. The Trump administration has spent political capital building coalitions with governors and traveling the country to promote healthier SNAP standards. Turning that energy toward Capitol Hill would put the policy on firmer ground than any executive waiver can provide.

Meanwhile, the administration continues pursuing its broader agenda on multiple fronts, from foreign policy negotiations with Iran to domestic health policy battles like this one.

The real failure isn't in the courtroom

It is easy, and partly justified, to point at an Obama-appointed judge and cry foul. Rollins did exactly that. But the deeper failure here belongs to Congress, which has known for more than a decade that SNAP's statutory definition of "food" includes products no nutritionist would recommend and no taxpayer should be forced to fund.

Bloomberg raised the issue in 2011. The Obama USDA ducked it. Congress ignored it. Now the Trump administration tried to fix it through executive action, and a federal court said the law doesn't allow that approach.

The administration is right on the policy. Taxpayers should not be subsidizing soda and candy for anyone. But being right on policy does not make you right on process. And process is what courts enforce.

If Congress wants SNAP to fund nutrition instead of sugar, it can say so in a statute. Until then, executive waivers will keep running into the same wall, no matter who sits in the Oval Office or who appointed the judge.