On June 22, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued a decision vacating waivers approved by the United States Department of Agriculture (“USDA”) that authorized certain states to restrict the purchase of specified food products—such as soda and candy—using Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (“SNAP”) funds. While the ruling applies to SNAP waivers in Colorado, Iowa, Nebraska, Tennessee, and West Virginia, it may also affect other waivers and future requests.
To date, USDA has approved waiver requests from 23 states seeking to implement pilot projects restricting the types of food products that may be purchased using benefits from SNAP—a federally funded, state-administered food assistance program—beyond the limits currently set forth in federal statute and regulation. Federal law defines eligible “food” as “any food or food product for home consumption except alcoholic beverages, tobacco, hot foods or hot food products ready for immediate consumption.”[1] The state waiver requests seek to exempt certain products from that definition, thereby barring SNAP participants from purchasing them. The restricted categories vary by state and include soda/soft drinks, sugar-sweetened beverages, energy drinks, candy, prepared desserts, and other products. SNAP recipients in the five named states challenged USDA’s approval of those waivers.
The District Court held that USDA exceeded its statutory authority in approving the SNAP waivers and failed to adhere to a mandatory procedural requirement applicable to SNAP pilot projects. The court therefore found that USDA had violated the Administrative Procedure Act, vacated the Colorado, Iowa, Nebraska, Tennessee, and West Virginia waivers, and remanded them to USDA.
First, the court found that USDA lacked authority under the SNAP pilot-project statutory provisions to approve the waivers. USDA relied on 7 U.S.C. § 2026(b), which authorizes projects that may “increase the efficiency of the [SNAP] program and improve the delivery of [SNAP] benefits.” The court found, however, that the state pilot projects were aimed at prohibiting purchases of certain products to address “health, nutrition, and obesity issues” among low-income populations—an objective not a covered by section 2026(b). Although section 2026(k) permits pilot projects using SNAP “to improve the dietary and health status” of eligible households and “to reduce overweight, obesity . . ., and associated co-morbidities,” the court found that USDA did not comply with that section’s “more stringent” requirements. The court also emphasized that section 2026(k) does not authorize USDA to waive the statutory definition of “food,” stating that “Congress defined what ‘food’ is supposed to be, and it did not authorize the agency to amend or waive the definition it enacted.”
Second, the court held that USDA failed to satisfy a procedural requirement for pilot projects. USDA’s regulations, at 7 C.F.R. § 282.1(b), require the agency to publish a Federal Register notice at least 30 days before initiating a pilot project that “will likely have a significant impact on the public.” The court found that USDA was required to publish such notices and had not do so. It also vacated and remanded a USDA memorandum stating that this notice requirement did not apply to the SNAP Food Restriction Waivers.
The ruling vacates and remands the SNAP waivers for Colorado, Iowa, Nebraska, Tennessee, and West Virginia, as well as USDA’s memorandum regarding 7 C.F.R. § 282.1(b). USDA has approved waivers for additional states that are not explicitly covered by the decision,[2] but the court’s interpretation of USDA’s statutory authority may affect those waivers and future waiver requests. It is unclear, at this stage, whether USDA or any of the affected states will appeal the decision.
If you have any questions concerning the material discussed in this client alert, please contact the following members of our Food, Beverage, and Dietary Supplements practice.
Back
