A federal judge in Washington, D.C. on Monday hit pause on a set of closely watched pilot projects that would have stopped people using SNAP benefits from buying soda and other sweetened drinks. The ruling blocks enforcement of new state rules that the U.S. Department of Agriculture had approved earlier this year and throws the future of similar bans into limbo.
U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson vacated and remanded the USDA’s approval letters, writing that Congress "did not authorize the agency to cut types of food out of SNAP entirely," and ordered further review. The move immediately halts the rollouts in several states. As reported by NBC4, the order was entered this week, and the court docket documents show the litigation and filings before Judge Jackson. The Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse lists the case and its major docket items.
The suit was filed in March by five low-income SNAP recipients from Colorado, Iowa, Nebraska, Tennessee and West Virginia, who are represented by the National Center for Law and Economic Justice. The National Center for Law and Economic Justice argues the waivers unlawfully narrowed the statutory definition of "food" and were adopted without the notice-and-comment process required by the Administrative Procedure Act.
Which states were affected
The plaintiffs challenged USDA approvals that would have allowed states to bar purchases of regular soft drinks, many energy drinks and certain candies with SNAP benefits. According to the Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse, the case centers on waivers tied to Iowa, Nebraska, West Virginia, Colorado and Tennessee, and legal reporting notes the agency had approved similar restriction waivers in more than twenty states during the 2025–26 rollout. Separate legal briefs and industry trackers, including DLA Piper, have been cataloging which states sought those pilot projects.
Why plaintiffs say the USDA overstepped
Plaintiffs contend the USDA improperly narrowed the Food and Nutrition Act’s long-standing definition of "food," effectively letting states carve entire categories of products out of SNAP coverage without clear statutory authority. Hunger-policy groups warned that the waivers would stigmatize recipients, increase retail compliance costs and might not meaningfully improve diets. The advocacy group FRAC urged legal action when the lawsuit was filed in March.
Legal implications and next steps
Jackson’s decision to vacate and remand requires the agency either to justify the approvals with a proper administrative record and process or to withdraw them entirely. It does not permanently bar the USDA from pursuing other rulemaking or a revised approval path. Observers note the government could seek a stay of the order or appeal to the D.C. Circuit if it wants to keep the policy alive while the agency reconsiders. Legal trackers at Just Security have outlined those likely procedural options and say an appeal would be the most direct route to quick review.
What this means on the ground
For now, SNAP benefits can be used at the same registers and for the same items as before in the states named in the lawsuit, even as some retailers and recipients in states that began phasing in restrictions report confusion at checkout. The USDA publicly backed a number of state waiver requests last year as part of a broader nutrition push; the agency’s earlier approvals and messaging on the initiative are detailed in USDA press materials.
The case is being watched closely by advocacy groups, retailers and state agencies because any final ruling will shape how the country’s largest nutrition program balances access, administrative burden and public-health goals. For now, at least, Jackson’s order keeps the disputed soda bans on ice while the agency and the courts sort out whether USDA had the authority and followed the proper process to approve them.
