Federal court sides with SNAP participants and blocks food restriction waivers in 5 states

On June 22, 2026, a federal court blocked SNAP food restriction waivers in five states, finding that the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) exceeded its legal authority when it approved demonstrations restricting what SNAP participants can purchase with their benefits. US District Judge Amy Berman Jackson ruled, in part, that USDA improperly used its demonstration-project authority to alter the statutory definition of foods eligible for purchase with SNAP benefits — something only Congress has the authority to do. While Judge Jackson acknowledged that improving diet quality and health are legitimate policy goals, she concluded that Congress, not USDA, must authorize changes to the definition of eligible food. 

The Center for Science in the Public Interest applauds the National Center for Law and Economic Justice for successfully challenging USDA's actions on behalf of SNAP participants in Colorado, Iowa, Nebraska, Tennessee, and West Virginia.  

While CSPI shares USDA's goal of improving nutrition and health outcomes among SNAP participants, we do not support using USDA’s waiver authority to implement food restrictions. In the absence of strong evidence on the impacts of SNAP food restrictions on purchases and health, SNAP participants and advocacy organizations, including CSPI, have raised concerns about the administrative burden, confusion, and stigma these policies could create. 

State agencies and participants are already struggling to navigate serious cuts and changes to SNAP, enacted with the passage of H.R. 1 last July. According to the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, since its enactment, SNAP participation has fallen by nearly 10 percent nationwide. States are facing new administrative requirements and costs, while many families are experiencing increased barriers to accessing food assistance. In this context, experimental food restriction projects risk further straining program administration and potentially undermining participation among eligible households. 

The federal government’s priority should be ensuring that SNAP remains a stable, reliable source of food assistance for families while preserving and expanding evidence-based strategies that improve nutrition. Programs such as the Gus Schumacher Nutrition Incentive Program, which increase participants' purchasing power for fruits and vegetables, have a strong evidence base and broad support among SNAP participants, and should be prioritized. 

There are several states where SNAP food restriction waivers have been approved, which are outside of the five impacted by this ruling. Robust evaluations of the demonstration projects in the other 18 states may help fill important research gaps. CSPI welcomes rigorous, independent evaluations — particularly those designed to assess impacts on sweetened beverage consumption, added sugar intake, overall diet quality, and potential unintended consequences such as reduced SNAP participation, retailer attrition, administrative burden, and participant stigma.  

If states continue pursuing SNAP waiver requests aimed at improving nutrition through SNAP, CSPI encourages approaches that pair fruit and vegetable incentives with sweetened beverage disincentives rather than outright restrictions. Such approaches can encourage healthier purchases while preserving participant choice and increasing purchasing power. Current evidence suggests that combined incentive-disincentive models are more likely to improve overall diet quality and are more acceptable to participants than restrictions alone.