Started By
Message

Federal judge rules government can't prevent using SNAP to purchase energy drinks and soda

Posted on 6/26/26 at 4:25 pm
Posted by Shexter
Prairieville
Member since Feb 2014
21175 posts
Posted on 6/26/26 at 4:25 pm
quote:

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.”


https://apnews.com/article/snap-food-aid-candy-soda-sugary-drink-effc74d2c5013bcd7e17ce43f176bdee

quote:

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.”
Posted by facher08
Baton Rouge
Member since Aug 2011
6151 posts
Posted on 6/26/26 at 4:26 pm to
Sugar lobby wins again.
Posted by SallysHuman
Lady Palmetto Bug
Member since Jan 2025
23678 posts
Posted on 6/26/26 at 4:27 pm to
Can’t get hot food but you CAN get Oreos and Pepsi…. Make it make sense.
Posted by Shexter
Prairieville
Member since Feb 2014
21175 posts
Posted on 6/26/26 at 4:30 pm to
quote:

Can’t get hot food but you CAN get Oreos and Pepsi…. Make it make sense.


It's somewhat comical

quote:

Federal SNAP rules (dating back to the 1970s) prohibit buying hot prepared foods meant for immediate consumption, such as rotisserie chickens, hot deli soups, or hot sandwiches. The program is legally designed to help households buy groceries and staple ingredients to prepare meals at home.


quote:

The Temperature Loophole: You can buy cold, pre-cooked items (like a cold rotisserie chicken or a cold deli sandwich) with your EBT card. However, if the store heats that exact same food up, it becomes ineligible.
Posted by UFFan
Planet earth, Milky Way Galaxy
Member since Aug 2016
3442 posts
Posted on 6/26/26 at 4:33 pm to
Really, I don’t think that SNAP should exist at all. But hot food is explicitly excluded from SNAP coverage under the statute, while junk food is not.
Posted by wm72
Brooklyn
Member since Mar 2010
9443 posts
Posted on 6/26/26 at 4:34 pm to
So, if these politicians really care about the issue they can simply go against big donors and classify things with scant nutritional benefits as non-food. Win win.
Posted by Lawyered
The Sip
Member since Oct 2016
38537 posts
Posted on 6/26/26 at 4:36 pm to
We should be able to vote on what SNAP benefit recipients should be able to buy since they’re buying it with our money

If they don’t agree, they can pay out of pocket. They ain’t starving anyway
Posted by SallysHuman
Lady Palmetto Bug
Member since Jan 2025
23678 posts
Posted on 6/26/26 at 4:37 pm to
quote:

But hot food is explicitly excluded from SNAP coverage under the statute, while junk food is not.


It’s because of ridiculous and outdated rules… a hot rotisserie chicken is a far better meal item than a sack of cookies and a bucket of cola.
Posted by bigberg2000
houston, from chalmette
Member since Sep 2005
70767 posts
Posted on 6/26/26 at 4:42 pm to
I mean if they want to waste their benefits on junk I say let them. :idk:
Posted by Shexter
Prairieville
Member since Feb 2014
21175 posts
Posted on 6/26/26 at 4:43 pm to
quote:

It’s because of ridiculous and outdated rules…


Yes, originally designed to promote cooking a family meal with fresh ingredients at home.

quote:

classify things with scant nutritional benefits as non-food.


Some states had put requirements for the energy drinks to have a certain percentage of natural ingredients. Probably why so many varieties of energy drinks suddenly appeared on the market.

Currently under the Louisiana SNAP Healthy Foods Waiver, all energy drinks containing stimulants (like caffeine, guarana, or taurine) are strictly banned from purchase with SNAP EBT, regardless of their ingredient makeup.
Posted by biohzrd
Central City
Member since Jan 2010
5914 posts
Posted on 6/26/26 at 4:48 pm to
No, bc then you’ll pay more on the arse end in all the “free” medical care they’ll receive for all the health issues this food causes!!!!
Posted by Roaad
White Privilege Broker
Member since Aug 2006
84901 posts
Posted on 6/26/26 at 5:01 pm to
USSC to the rescue

Posted by Barrister
Member since Jul 2012
5318 posts
Posted on 6/26/26 at 5:10 pm to
Lief's hard - - - let me people have a Coke
Posted by Obi Wan Ryobi
Member since Feb 2026
139 posts
Posted on 6/26/26 at 5:19 pm to
Like most court decisions, yall are commenting on the policy and not the law.

This was a statutory construction ruling - and probably the correct one. This is independent of the wisdom of the statute itself.

This thread proves once again that everyone hates “activist judges” until they want one.
Posted by deeprig9
Unincorporated Ozora
Member since Sep 2012
75767 posts
Posted on 6/26/26 at 5:27 pm to
quote:

Amy Berman Jackson


I know this name. Didn't she have some other really kooky ruling recently?
Posted by deeprig9
Unincorporated Ozora
Member since Sep 2012
75767 posts
Posted on 6/26/26 at 5:29 pm to
Google- she's the bitch that sent Paul Manafort and Roger Stone to prison because they are Republicans and she's a commie.
Posted by junkfunky
Member since Jan 2011
36484 posts
Posted on 6/26/26 at 5:30 pm to
quote:

Can’t get hot food


If you start allowing hot food you will eventually have to make all sit down restaurants accept it. Only limiting it to grocery or convenience stores will quickly be deemed racist since black people live in "food deserts". Only limiting it to certain areas allowing sit down restaurants to accept based on the demographics of that area is..you know...the thing.
Posted by SallysHuman
Lady Palmetto Bug
Member since Jan 2025
23678 posts
Posted on 6/26/26 at 5:33 pm to
quote:

If you start allowing hot food you will eventually have to make all sit down restaurants accept it.


I didn't think about that..

Soda and snack machines take cards now- do they take ebt cards? Maybe there's a way to carve out "store" hot food vs restaurant hot food? But, yeah, you bring up a good point!
Posted by GreenRockTiger
vortex to the whirlpool of despair
Member since Jun 2020
61197 posts
Posted on 6/26/26 at 5:34 pm to
quote:

Sugar lobby wins again.
do they? I thought most soft drinks used high fructose corn syrup.
Posted by BurningHeart
Member since Jan 2017
10084 posts
Posted on 6/26/26 at 5:34 pm to
I havent been keeping up with this... main question is why not rewrite the law of what constitutes food?

It does seem pretty obvious that the definition needs to change.

Of course Dems will likely vote against anything that upsets their people, which ae likely most of the EBT users.
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 2Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on X, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookXInstagram