Obama-Appointed Judge Overturns Trump Admin Health Rules, Says Food Stamps Can Be Used for Soda, Candy
Why not just allow food stamps to be used on cannabis edibles?
They’re food, right? They’re nutritive. They’ve got calories — a lot, if you’re going for the old-school hash brownie. They’ve got a little bit of a kick to get you through the day, too. Why shouldn’t the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program cover them?
You may think that’s a joke, but I’m guessing there’s a good chance U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson might actually buy that. On Monday, the Obama-appointed judge ruled that soda — not exactly known for delivering nutritive value, unless you consider sugar and caffeine nutrition — could not be cut out of SNAP benefits, more commonly known as food stamps.
The ruling reverses a number of waivers granted by Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins, which approved a program to “amend the statutory definition of ‘food for purchase’ under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP),” as per a media release in December of 2025, which announced a new round of states that were granted waivers.
The move would have barred soda and candy, among other unhealthy items, from being purchased with taxpayer dollars.
“President Trump has made it clear: we are restoring SNAP to its true purpose – nutrition. Under the [Make America Healthy Again] initiative, we are taking bold, historic steps to reverse the chronic diseases epidemic that has taken root in this country for far too long,” Rollins said in a media release.
“America’s governors are answering that call with courage and innovation, offering solutions that honor the generosity of the taxpayer while helping families live longer, healthier lives. With these new waivers, we are empowering states to lead, protecting our children from the dangers of highly-processed foods, and moving one step closer to the President’s promise to Make America Healthy Again.”
However, according to The Hill, five families in five different states sued the USDA for disallowing them “from using their benefits on junk foods, sodas, energy drinks or other ‘non-nutritious items.’”
One plaintiff, Amanda Johnson of Tennessee — one of six states granted a waiver in December, making a total of 22 states that have been granted restriction waivers under the Trump administration — said that her daughter’s avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder meant that she would no longer be able to purchase non-nutritive foods that her doctors had advised she could eat.
“Because of her daughter’s ARFID, she can safely consume only a very limited number of ‘safe foods,’” the lawsuit claimed.
“If she is unable to eat those foods, the only alternative is nutrition through a feeding tube. Her physicians have advised Plaintiff Johnson to provide her daughter with whatever foods she is able to eat in order to avoid nutritional deterioration and invasive medical intervention.”
Berman Jackson agreed with the plaintiffs, citing that Congress must determine what nutritive food is.
“Congress defined what ‘food’ is supposed to be, and it did not authorize the agency to amend or waive the definition it enacted. It did not authorize the agency to cut types of food out of SNAP entirely,” she wrote in her ruling.
“It set out clearly the type of experimental projects that could be tested to address the unquestionably serious health issues attributed to the rise of obesity in the population in general and particularly the low-income population.”
“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,” Jackson added, according to Reuters. “But what they cannot do is violate the law and their own regulations along the way.”
What’s amazing that the side of the judicial aisle that considers the “major questions doctrine” to be a joke and holds the administrative state to be inviolable suddenly believes that stuff that clearly isn’t nutritive food that American taxpayers are paying for is somehow protected, even though Reuters reported the ruling did note that waivers could be “allowed under U.S. law” for reasons “such as improving the efficiency of the SNAP program.”
Not allowing your money to be spent on Red Bull and a Snickers would, you would think, qualify under that — but no, according to Monday’s ruling.
The administration said it will continue to push forward with the waiver program, indicating that an appeal is likely.
“The idea that taxpayer funds should not be used to purchase junk food should not be controversial,” said a Department of Agriculture spokesperson.
“USDA will not be backing down from the fight to Make America Healthy Again, including for families and communities reliant on SNAP.”
To say that this is the correct battle at the correct time is an understatement: These foods should have never been subsidized with your money, and the fact that they’re making low-income families unhealthier means more of your money will be used to treat them via programs like Medicaid. This is common-sense stuff. If soda, candy, and energy drinks don’t qualify as non-nutritive, it’s not a long leap for my ridiculous cannabis edibles hypothetical to get subsidized, either.
I hesitate to mention it, though. It might give Amy Berman Jackson ideas.
Advertise with The Western Journal and reach millions of highly engaged readers, while supporting our work. Advertise Today.
Truth and Accuracy
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.
