Judge rules government can't stop SNAP dollars from buying candy and sugary drinks

The federal government can't block benefits from the nation's largest food aid program from being used to buy candy, soda and other sugary drinks, a judge ruled.

Monday's ruling scuttles restrictions now in place or planned for the federally funded and state-run Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program in 23 states. President Donald Trump's administration has not said whether it will appeal to a higher court.

U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson, who sits in Washington and was nominated to the bench by former President Barack Obama, said in her opinion that the ruling was because the federal government did not follow its own definition of “food." She said it wasn't a comment on whether the restrictions are a good idea.

“The federal defendants and the states may have a genuine desire to improve the health of SNAP households by encouraging healthy choices at the store, and they can take lawful steps to meet those goals,” she wrote. “But what they cannot do is violate the law and their own regulations along the way.”

Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins and Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. have encouraged states to limit what the food aid can be used to buy as part of the “Make America Healthy Again” campaign.

They reason that soda and candy fuel obesity, diabetes and chronic disease epidemics — and taking them off the menu would encourage healthier food choices.

The Agriculture Department has given 23 states so far permission to implement restrictions. Some have been implemented already, while others are queued to take effect in the coming months and years.

At least one state that was set to limit soda and candy purchases changed course earlier this year. Colorado's human services board voted against implementing the ban after a March hearing in which SNAP beneficiaries and advocates said people would face stigmas if they mistakenly tried to use the benefits on prohibited items. They also said the rules were confusing because they would have allowed buying drinks with at least 50% fruit or vegetable juice, but not those with less.

While the goals are similar, the exact rules vary by state. Some wanted to ban both sugary drinks and candy, while others only sought to ban sugary beverages.

A legal challenge to the candy and soda ban — which includes items such as sports drinks in some states — was filed by SNAP beneficiaries in Colorado, Iowa, Nebraska, Tennessee and West Virginia.

Jackson said the main legal misstep in restricting what SNAP benefits could buy came because it ran contrary to Congress's definition of “food.”

Under the law, SNAP benefits — formerly known as food stamps — can be used for “any food or food product for home consumption except alcoholic beverages, tobacco, hot foods or hot food products ready for immediate consumption.”

The government can waive requirements, but limiting use of the benefits to improve nutrition isn't listed as a reason to do so. Yet when states asked the Agriculture Department to let them restrict purchases, their requests included using alternate definitions of “food.”

The Agriculture Department has not said whether it intends to appeal the ruling.

The case is among scores of challenges to Trump administration policies that hinge on whether the administration has the authority to change policies without congressional approval.

While it's a big program helping nearly 39 million Americans — about 1 in 9 — buy groceries, SNAP is normally relatively low-profile. That's been different since Trump returned to office last year.

Under his big tax and policy law signed last year, more recipients are subject to work requirements and states are being required to pay a larger share of administrative costs — and could be on the hook for benefit costs if their error rates are too high.

During a government shutdown last year, courts blocked the administration from cutting off benefits. Meanwhile, Rollins has said that there's rampant fraud in the program.

U.S. Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins testifies during a Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry oversight hearing on Capitol Hill, Wednesday, June 10, 2026, in Washington. (AP Photo/Mariam Zuhaib)

FILE - SNAP EBT information sign is displayed at a gas station in Riverwoods, Ill., Nov. 1, 2025. (AP Photo/Nam Y. Huh, File)

FORT WORTH, Texas (AP) — A demonstrator who shot and wounded a police officer outside a Texas immigration center last July 4 was sentenced to 100 years in federal prison Tuesday, while other protesters accused of having links to antifa were given multiple decades in federal prison.

Benjamin Song was convicted of attempted murder last March after prosecutors say he opened fire and wounded a police officer at the Prairieland Detention Center in Alvarado.

The seven other protesters sentenced Tuesday received prison terms ranging from 30 to 70 years.

“Our issue with this case has always been this isn’t a bunch of terrorists. This is a bunch of kids and young adults who really have a really big heart and really wanted their voice to be heard,” Philip Hayes, Song’s attorney, said outside the federal courthouse in Fort Worth. “It was never intended that anybody get hurt. It was never intended that any shots would be fired.”

U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor, one of two judges overseeing the proceedings, said what happened last July wasn’t a protest but “an assault on democracy.”

“The need to deter this type of conduct is high,” O'Connor said.

Hayes said his client will appeal the sentence.

“Song, aside from this day, has had an impeccable life. A former Marine. A good student,” he said. “He had a lot of good qualities that were just ignored. The judge went ahead and gave as much as he could.”

One of the defendants, Daniel Sanchez Estrada, was convicted of corruptly concealing a document and conspiracy to conceal documents. He received a 30-year prison term Tuesday.

Others pleaded guilty to providing material support to terrorists rather than take their case to trial.

Prosecutors say the eight are members of antifa, a decentralized anti-fascist organization that has become a target of the Trump administration. Short for “anti-fascists,” antifa is not a single organization but rather an umbrella term for far-left militant groups that confront or resist neo-Nazis and white supremacists at demonstrations.

President Donald Trump last fall signed an executive order designating antifa a domestic terrorist organization, even though there is no domestic equivalent to the State Department’s list of foreign terror organizations.

The defendants deny any affiliation with antifa and maintain they attended the demonstration to show support for immigrants inside the detention center.

Critics warn the case could have wide-reaching impact on protests given that organizations operating within the U.S. are supposed to be protected by First Amendment free-speech rights.

Last week, federal prosecutors charged 15 people with impeding the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown in Minnesota. They claimed the demonstrators were members of antifa who conspired against the federal government to block arrests and deportations by setting up blockades around government buildings and throwing chunks of ice at federal vehicles, among other actions.

Marcelo reported from New York.

FILE - Officers with the Department of Homeland Security walk on the sidewalk outside the Eldon B. Mahon U.S. Courthouse during a trial for people connected to a 2025 shooting outside an ICE detention facility, in Fort Worth, Texas, March 12, 2026. (AP Photo/Tony Gutierrez, File)