On Monday, a federal judge struck down new restrictions on food that can be purchased with SNAP benefits in Iowa and four other states. In her 68-page ruling, Judge Amy Berman Jackson of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia found that the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), which funds SNAP, lacked the authority to grant the waivers the states relied on to impose their own restrictions on what foods the program covers.
Jackson’s ruling came in a lawsuit filed in March against filed in March by the National Center for Law and Economic Justice (NCLEJ) on behalf of plaintiffs in Iowa, Colorado, Nebraska, Tennessee and West Virginia. The lawsuit challenged the legality of the USDA’s decision to grant the waiver rather than the individual programs created after the waivers were granted.
At least 22 states have received USDA waivers to prohibit the use of SNAP benefits to buy food those states designate as “unhealthy” after Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. called for them to do so last year as part of his “Make America Healthy Again” initiative.
Iowa and the other four states named in the federal lawsuit were among the first to receive waivers. The Reynolds administration applied to USDA for a waiver in March 2025 and received it two months later. The SNAP restrictions approved by Gov. Reynolds went into effect this year on Jan. 1.
“We are an unhealthy population,” Reynolds said in an interview on Iowa Press after the waiver was granted. “We think this really lines up with the intent of what SNAP was designed for in the beginning, and they can use those dollars to purchase healthy foods and help supplement their family income.”
Iowa nonprofits focused on food insecurity opposed the state introducing SNAP restrictions.
“Instead of investing in evidence-based solutions to improve healthy eating, the state of Iowa is choosing to experiment on low-income Iowans’ grocery carts,” Nicole McAlexander, vice chair of Iowa Hunger Coalition, said after the USDA approved Iowa’s waiver.
McAlexander and other advocates for food-insecure Iowans preferred an approach that would make access to healthier foods easier and more affordable for SNAP participants, instead of restrictions that, according to McAlexander, would “perpetuate misconceptions” about SNAP.
Like Iowa, the other four states “sought to waive the federal definition of ‘food,’ and replace it with a definition that excluded specific items” in order, the states claimed, to promote food selections that would improve the health of SNAP participants, Judge Jackson noted in her opinion. Colorado, Nebraska, Tennessee and West Virginia conducted a deliberative process to determine what foods they would prohibit. The Reynolds administration employed a blunter method, making only foods that are exempt from sales tax in Iowa eligible for purchase with SNAP.
Although the governor talked about her SNAP restrictions as a way of stopping people from using federal food assistance to buy “sugary” foods and drinks, using sales tax as the determinative of what’s eligible created a situation where SNAP couldn’t be used to buy candy bars (taxable) but could be used at a grocery store to buy a tub of ice cream (tax exempt). Using the taxable standard also introduced factors that had nothing to do with nutrition.
“Under the Iowa waiver, SNAP eligibility now depends not only on the type of food, but also on complex factors such as whether a retailer has a seating area and whether the food was prepared on-site,” NCLEJ attorneys pointed out in the brief they filed in March.
Neither Iowa nor the other states fully considered the implications of their SNAP restrictions for participants with certain medical conditions. All of the plaintiffs in the lawsuits have medical conditions the SNAP restrictions make more difficult to treat.
Marc Craig of Des Moines was the Iowa plaintiff in the lawsuit. He has “chronic kidney failure and diabetes,” and depends on SNAP to purchase food, according to the lawsuit. Previously, he would use his SNAP benefits to purchase Gatorade and Pedialyte to improve his hydration level, something his kidney condition necessitates. Since the new restriction took effect on Jan. 1, neither product is SNAP-eligible in Iowa. It is not the only problem the governor’s changes to SNAP have caused for Craig and others.
Because the type of store impacts whether food is tax-exempt and therefore SNAP eligible, “at some retailers he was not able to purchase sandwiches and salads, while at other retailers he was able to do so. Many of the items that remain consistently SNAP-eligible across retail locations are either nutritionally inappropriate, such as ice cream, or prohibitively expensive, such as pre-cut fruit,” the lawsuit states.
“Since the Iowa waiver took effect, Plaintiff Craig’s diet has worsened, and he is consuming more highly processed foods that are high in sugar and sodium. As a result, he is increasingly reliant on medication to manage conditions that he previously helped control through diet.”
NCLEJ attorney said in their March filing that Craig “sent emails to all 150 Iowa state legislators, his Congressperson, his Senators, the governor of Iowa, and the mayor of Des Moines to try to explain how the Iowa waiver would harm him and other Iowans who rely on SNAP.”
USDA did not solicit public comments on granting waivers to the states. Craig said he would have provided comments to the agency if he had had the opportunity.
That failure to follow normal federal procedure was one of the grounds on which NCLEJ challenged the USDA waivers. The lawsuit alleged the agency violated the Administrative Procedures Act by not holding a public comment period before issuing the waivers to the states. Judge Jackson agreed and issued a summary judgement in favor of the plaintiffs on this point.
Jackson also issued a summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs on their larger argument that USDA and Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins lacked the authority to grant states the power to “waive the statutory definition of ‘food’ to replace it with the state’s proposed definition.” Such changes to the SNAP program would require congressional action.
“Congress defined what ‘food’ is supposed to be, and it did not authorize the agency to amend or waive the definition it enacted,” Jackson wrote. “It did not authorize the agency to cut types of food out of SNAP entirely. 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. But it did not invite the Secretary to ignore its directives by trying to advance those ends under the banner of ‘efficiency’ or administrative improvements.”
Attorneys for the Trump administration had argued that the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 gave the USDA the authority to approve temporary state-level pilot programs, such as the ones the agency approved, because it allows for the programs to improve the efficiency with which SNAP benefits are delivered to participants. But Jackson ruled that both the plain language of the statute and the legislative history behind it clearly showed Congress intended the waivers to apply to administrative matters.
“Improving the health and diet of SNAP recipients is not included,” she wrote.
The NCLEJ lawsuit also alleged that approval of the SNAP restrictions in the five states was illegal because those restrictions were arbitrary. Jackson said there was no need to address this point because the summary judgments on the other two points were enough to overturn the waivers, thereby making the issue of arbitrariness moot.
In a written statement issued on Tuesday, Gov. Reynolds denounced the judge’s ruling.
“The court’s decision is short-sighted and does nothing to improve the health of our country,” Reynolds said. “In the meantime, Iowa will continue to work on our plan to do exactly that.”
Iowa Attorney General Brenna Bird posted a similar statement on social media on Wednesday.
“Yesterday’s ruling from one federal judge in DC against these waivers is disappointing, and we will work with USDA to explore all legal options to continue supporting Iowa children’s access to healthy and nutritious food options,” Bird wrote.
The USDA, the only party that has standing to appeal Jackson’s ruling, has not yet said whether it will file an appeal.
