Federal Judge Overturns SNAP Soda Waivers
The court has ruled. The verdict is out. Yes, soda is essential for survival!
That’s what Judge Amy Berman Jackson of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia ruled on June 22, 2026, in the Aragon vs. Rollins case. This lawsuit was filed on March 11 by the National Center for Law and Economic Justice on behalf of plaintiffs from five states who claimed that SNAP waivers granted to states by the USDA were causing them “irreparable harm” by depriving them “of the food they need to maintain their health and employment, and in some cases, to survive”—sweetened beverages and candy.
The judge ruled in favor of the plaintiffs on technical grounds—the USDA did not follow proper procedure. While the agency is authorized to approve pilot projects “to improve the dietary and health status” of SNAP recipients, the judge ruled that by not allowing people to purchase sweetened beverages with SNAP benefits, “the Secretary purports to waive not just a mere administrative or technical obstacle, but the very definition of ‘food’ as it was laid down by Congress.”
That definition of “food” in the SNAP enabling legislation is, “any food or food product for home consumption except alcoholic beverages, tobacco, hot foods or hot food products ready for immediate consumption.” Only Congress has the power to exclude things like soda from this definition, so Secretary Rollins was overstepping her bounds by approving the waivers.
Fair enough. But while the ruling is legally correct, the argument that the judge used to justify hearing the case should be troubling to MAHA advocates. In order to file a lawsuit, a plaintiff must be able to prove that they have “suffered some actual or threatened injury as a result of the illegal conduct of the defendant.”
Did not being able to use government money to buy soda cause injury to the plaintiffs? Yes, apparently. “SNAP benefits made it possible for them to purchase the foods and beverages that aided their health and wellness,” the judge said. Not allowing them to buy soda with SNAP “injures plaintiffs by depriving them in part of a governmental benefit they previously enjoyed” and “affects their finances and health because they must now take money out of already limited budgets to pay for the items, if they can at all.”
Note the irony of this. The purpose of the SNAP waivers was to discourage people from buying unhealthy products. It was working, too; the food industry reported that sales of soda and candy dropped twice as much in states that implemented SNAP waivers than states that did not. Since the dollar amount of SNAP benefits did not change, recipients still had just as much money to buy foods that truly “aided their health and wellness,” which soda does not.
Yes, the waivers were an executive overreach. But the fact that a federal judge chose to hear the case on the grounds that people’s health would be negatively impacted by drinking less soda is disappointing.
