Federal Court Blocks SNAP Food Restrictions in 5 States, Rules USDA Exceeded Its Authority

A federal court blocked the Trump administration’s effort to restrict what food stamp recipients could buy, ruling the agency had no legal authority to redefine what counts as food under federal law.

What You Should Know

On June 22, 2026, U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson issued a ruling in Aragon v. Rollins, invalidating the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s approval of SNAP food-restriction demonstration projects in Colorado, Iowa, Nebraska, Tennessee, and West Virginia, according to analysis from the Food Research and Action Center. The court found that USDA exceeded its legal authority by using its demonstration-project power to alter what SNAP participants could purchase, a function that only Congress has the authority to authorize.

The Trump administration had approved 23 state waivers since 2025, allowing states to restrict which foods and beverages SNAP participants could buy. This represented a major shift in federal policy; previous Democratic and Republican administrations, including the first Trump administration, had denied similar state requests.

The System Under Pressure

SNAP participation has already fallen nearly 10 percent nationwide since the One Big Beautiful Bill Act was signed in July 2025, according to the Center for Science in the Public Interest. The OBBBA imposed approximately $186 billion in cuts to SNAP over 10 years and significantly tightened work requirements and eligibility criteria.

The court’s ruling adds legal uncertainty to the 18 additional state waivers not yet in statewide implementation. Judge Jackson’s ruling drew a distinction between Congress authorizing incentive-based strategies to encourage healthier eating and the USDA unilaterally restricting entire categories of otherwise eligible foods. The court found that USDA’s approved projects lacked the rigorous evaluation and evidence base required under the relevant statute.

The Receipts

The Food Research and Action Center published analysis of the June 22 ruling on its website, noting that the court concluded USDA had effectively bypassed the proper statutory requirements. The Center for Science in the Public Interest similarly noted that the ruling tracked Judge Jackson’s finding that the Food and Nutrition Act does not grant USDA the authority to redefine what qualifies as food through the demonstration project provision.

What Happens Next

USDA can appeal the ruling. The 18 state waivers that have not yet reached statewide implementation now face legal uncertainty. Congress could attempt to legislatively authorize food purchase restrictions for SNAP, which would provide the legal foundation the court found missing from the USDA’s approach. States currently operating under the blocked waivers in Colorado, Iowa, Nebraska, Tennessee, and West Virginia must revert to standard SNAP purchase rules.

References: Food Research and Action Center, Federal Court Strikes Down USDA Approval of SNAP Food Restriction Demonstrations | Center for Science in the Public Interest, Federal Court Sides With SNAP Participants