DES MOINES — Iowa’s push to stop taxpayer-funded food assistance from being used on soda, candy and other sugary items has been blocked by a federal judge in Washington, D.C.
Gov. Kim Reynolds criticized the ruling, saying it undercuts Iowa’s effort to align Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits with healthier food choices.
The ruling came from U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson in a federal case challenging USDA-approved state waivers that would restrict what SNAP recipients could buy with benefits.
The lawsuit was filed by SNAP recipients in Colorado, Iowa, Nebraska, Tennessee and West Virginia, who argued the restrictions would undermine access to food and exceeded USDA’s authority.
Jackson ruled that the U.S. Department of Agriculture lacked legal authority to approve the state restrictions. The judge said the federal government and states may have a genuine desire to improve nutrition, but they cannot violate the law or their own regulations to do it.
The ruling affects Iowa and other states that sought or received approval to restrict SNAP purchases of sugary drinks, candy and similar products as part of a broader Make America Healthy Again effort backed by Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins and Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
Reynolds said the court decision is short-sighted.
“For decades, the USDA’s Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program has fallen short of its original intent to provide low-income families with affordable access to nutritious food,” Reynolds said.
The governor said SNAP’s broad definition of eligible foods excludes alcohol, tobacco and hot foods, but still allows benefits to be used on items such as soft drinks and candy.
“Taxpayers are subsidizing so-called nutrition benefits that today include soft drinks and candy while 40% of American adults and 20% of children are obese,” Reynolds said.
Supporters of Iowa’s Healthy SNAP approach argue the change is common sense: government food benefits should support nutrition, not help pay for products tied to obesity, diabetes and chronic disease.
Reynolds said Iowa’s proposal would not ban SNAP recipients from buying unhealthy foods with their own money. Instead, the state would simply stop using taxpayer-funded benefits to pay for those items.
“The changes proposed aren’t a mandate — SNAP members can choose what they want, but the state won’t pay for unhealthy foods,” Reynolds said.
Opponents argued the restrictions would create confusion at checkout, stigmatize low-income shoppers and interfere with access to food. Some plaintiffs said restricted sugary products may be used by people with health conditions such as diabetes or allergies, or for quick energy needs.
The legal dispute turned largely on federal law. Under current SNAP rules, benefits generally may be used for food or food products for home consumption, except alcohol, tobacco, hot foods and hot prepared foods. Jackson ruled that USDA could not use waiver authority to rewrite that definition for nutrition-based restrictions.
The case is part of a larger national fight over SNAP, public health and the role of government benefits. Supporters of restrictions say taxpayers should not be footing the bill for junk food. Critics say Congress, not USDA or individual states, must change the law if those purchases are to be limited.
Iowa officials say they will continue working on a plan to promote better nutrition and health through SNAP.
“The court’s decision is short-sighted and does nothing to improve the health of our country,” Reynolds said. “In the meantime, Iowa will continue to work on our plan to do exactly that.”
The ruling may not be the final word. The Trump administration has not said whether it will appeal.