Federal Judge Rules Against State SNAP Waivers

'This was never a workable system, and we are pleased to see the court agreed,' NACS says'

By Bill Wilson on Jun. 23, 2026, CSP

A federal judge blocked the Trump administration’s attempt to prevent Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) users from using food stamps to pay for sugary drinks and candy.​ Judge Amy Berman Jackson of the Federal District Court in Washington ruled Monday that the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) could not approve waivers by states that ban SNAP dollars for unhealthy food purchases. The USDA had approved waivers for more than 20 states, considered a major victory by the Make America Healthy Again movement.

“This ruling confirms what NACS and convenience retailers have been saying from day one: These waivers do not make SNAP more efficient. They make it more confusing,” said Margaret Mannion, director of government relations for the National Association of Convenience Stores (NACS). “Our members are the ones who have to navigate these complex changes at the register every day. This was never a workable system, and we are pleased to see the court agreed.” 

In her ruling, Jackson said the Trump administration and USDA could take lawful steps to encourage healthier food choices, but they could not violate the law and their own regulations along the way.

In March, consumers in five states—Colorado, Iowa, Nebraska, Tennessee and West Virginia—sued the Trump administration over the SNAP ban, arguing it violated laws authorizing SNAP and governing policy changes.

The National Center for Law and Economic Justice filed the lawsuit on behalf of the consumers, arguing the USDA authorized states to narrow the statutory definition of “food” haphazardly without statutory authority or evaluation methodology and without notice to or input from people and retailers the policy directly impacted. Retailers complained the waivers made things difficult at checkout.

Numerator released data in May showing the waivers would affect roughly one-third of SNAP participants, and 63% of SNAP consumers would use non-SNAP dollars to purchase soda if it became ineligible, whether to buy as usual or shift to less expensive alternatives. Sixty percent said the same about candy, and 45% said the same about energy drinks.

If soda and energy drinks became ineligible, over 30% of SNAP consumers said they would possibly substitute tea, juice and coffee. Candy showed a similar pattern, with fruit, ice cream and fruit snacks each cited by over 30% of SNAP users as potential replacements, according to Numerator.

In states implementing waiver restrictions by the end of 2026, SNAP households intending to redirect spending to other categories or cut back purchases could drive sales declines of up to $430 million for soda, $300 million for candy and $100 million for energy drinks.