A judge has thrown out the US government’s bid to prevent SNAP benefits from being used to buy soft drinks and confectionery.
Five plaintiffs had brought the case against the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins in March.
Go deeper with GlobalData
Discover B2B Marketing That Performs
Combine business intelligence and editorial excellence to reach engaged professionals across 36 leading media platforms.
A conclusion of the proceedings was made by judge Amy Berman Jackson in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia yesterday (22 June) covering the states of Colorado, Iowa, Nebraska, Tennessee and West Virginia.
As part of the Trump government’s Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) campaign under the auspices of Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., authorities had sought to prevent SNAP benefits from being used to buy certain food and drinks products deemed as unhealthy.
The plaintiffs receiving benefits from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program – aimed at low-income households – in those five states had launched the court challenge against the pilot projects.
According to Politico, citing the USDA, 23 states are seeking waivers to allow them to limit certain foods in the SNAP programme such as soda or confectionery.
The court document of the proceedings said the US government’s move was aimed at the “health, nutrition, and obesity issues prevalent in the low-income population”.
However, Jackson ruled the “defendants also failed to abide by the notice requirement of their own regulation, 7 C.F.R. § 282.1(b), which requires the USDA to post notice of pilot projects in the Federal Register thirty days before implementation if they are likely to have a significant impact on the public”.
She added: “The agency’s terse statement that the pilot projects would not have a significant impact on the public is entitled to little deference and it is directly contrary to the facts in the administrative record.
“The court’s analysis should not be taken as a comment on whether the pilot projects are a good idea or not. That is a question of policy that is not before the court.
“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. But what they cannot do is violate the law and their own regulations along the way.”
Just Drinks has asked the USDA for comment.
Plaintiffs had filed three claims against the USDA and Rollins. The first being the restriction on certain SNAP food products under the pilot projects “exceeded their statutory authority”.
The second count alleged the “approval was arbitrary and capricious” and the third that the “approval was procedurally defective because defendants did not comply with its notice and comment obligations”.
The court declined to rule on count two “because defendants did not have authority to approve them in the first place”.
Jackson said in her conclusion: “Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment will be granted, and defendants’ cross-motion for summary judgment will be denied.”
