Judge Amy Berman Jackson Blocks Trump Administration’s MAHA Pilot Programs Restricting Junk Food Purchases with SNAP Benefits

U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson, an Obama appointee, ruled on June 22, 2026, that the Trump administration exceeded its authority by approving state pilot programs under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) that restrict purchases of soda, candy, and other unhealthy foods. The decision halted the waivers in Colorado, Iowa, Nebraska, Tennessee, and West Virginia after low-income SNAP recipients from those states sued Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins.

The programs represented a key early achievement of the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) initiative led by President Trump, Agriculture Secretary Rollins, and Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. The effort sought to redirect federal nutrition aid away from products linked to obesity, diabetes, and chronic disease. At least 23 states had applied for or received waivers to amend what counts as eligible “food” under SNAP, with some states already implementing restrictions on sugary drinks and candy effective in 2026.

Judge Jackson sided with the plaintiffs, who argued the restrictions would limit their ability to purchase food and create confusion or stigma. In her opinion, she held that the USDA could approve waivers only for narrow purposes such as improving program efficiency—not for redefining the statutory meaning of “food” set by Congress in the Food and Nutrition Act. She wrote that the Secretary’s actions attempted to waive “not just a mere administrative or technical obstacle, but the very definition of ‘food’ as it was laid down by Congress.” Jackson added that neither the USDA nor the states could “force this square peg into a round hole to avoid the plain language of the statute.”

The ruling directly blocks implementation in the five plaintiff states while leaving approvals in other participating states intact for now. The administration has indicated it will continue pursuing similar curbs under MAHA. Critics of the policy welcomed the decision, claiming it protects access for low-income households and that evidence for broad health improvements from restrictions remains limited. Supporters of MAHA, however, view the blocks as judicial interference with common-sense steps to combat America’s chronic disease epidemic using taxpayer dollars.

SNAP, the nation’s largest anti-hunger program, has long allowed purchases of nearly any food item except alcohol, tobacco, and hot prepared foods. The Trump administration expanded state flexibility through waivers, arguing that subsidizing junk food contradicts the program’s nutrition purpose and contributes to public health costs. Kennedy Jr. and Rollins publicly promoted the changes, with some federal rural health funding tied to state participation in the food-choice waivers.

The lawsuit challenged the pilots as an overreach that effectively rewrote congressional definitions without new legislation. Jackson’s opinion emphasized strict adherence to statutory text over policy goals, even when those goals address widely acknowledged health challenges. The decision underscores ongoing legal battles over executive authority in nutrition and welfare programs.

As MAHA advances broader reforms aimed at reducing ultra-processed food consumption and improving American health outcomes, this ruling limits one of its most visible early tools. The administration and supportive states are expected to explore appeals or alternative approaches, while the five affected states must continue allowing SNAP purchases of the restricted items pending further action. The case highlights tensions between federal health priorities and judicial interpretations of program rules established decades ago.