District Court Vacates USDA Approval Of Five State SNAP Pilot Projects Restricting Purchases Of Certain Foods And Beverages

On June 22, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted summary judgment to a group of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) participants challenging U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) approvals of state SNAP pilot projects in Colorado, Iowa, Nebraska, Tennessee, and West Virginia.¹ District Judge Amy Berman Jackson vacated USDA’s approval letters for those five states, remanded the matter to the agency, and also vacated an internal memorandum concluding that the USDA was not required to publish Federal Register notice before implementing the pilot projects. The decision is a significant setback for USDA and state efforts to restrict purchases of certain foods and beverages with SNAP benefits.

The court held that USDA exceeded its statutory authority by approving the SNAP waiver pilot projects under 7 U.S.C. § 2026(b), a provision the court read as authorizing projects aimed at improving SNAP administrative efficiency—not projects designed to improve participant health, which are governed by a different statutory provision, 7 U.S.C. § 2026(k). Section 2026(k) carries stricter requirements and does not authorize the agency to waive the broad statutory definition of “food” to categorically exclude certain products from SNAP eligibility, according to the opinion. Separately, the court held that USDA also violated its own regulation, 7 C.F.R. § 282.1(b), by failing to publish notice in the Federal Register before implementing projects likely to have a significant impact on the public.

As we previously covered, the plaintiffs filed suit on March 11, 2026, challenging USDA approvals of SNAP waivers granted to Colorado, Iowa, Nebraska, Tennessee, and West Virginia.² The challenged waiver approvals restrict SNAP purchases of certain foods and beverages, including candy, soft drinks, energy drinks, and—in Tennessee—certain processed foods and beverages.³ The plaintiffs argued that USDA lacked statutory authority to permit states to narrow the federal definition of “food,” that USDA’s decisionmaking was arbitrary and capricious, and that USDA failed to comply with required notice-and-comment procedures. Each approved project applied statewide to all SNAP participants, and the court noted that none provided any opt-out for medical or individual circumstances, such as several diabetic plaintiffs concerned about restricted access to products that help manage their blood sugar.

The Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 defines “food” for SNAP purposes very broadly as food products for home consumption, with only limited exceptions for alcoholic beverages, tobacco, and hot foods ready for immediate consumption.⁴ The challenged state SNAP waivers sought to alter that definition within each state by excluding additional categories of products from SNAP eligibility. Secretary Rollins approved each challenged project under 7 U.S.C. § 2026(b), which authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to conduct pilot or experimental projects designed to test program changes that might increase program efficiency and improve the delivery of SNAP benefits to eligible households.

The D.C. District Court’s Decision

The court granted summary judgment for the plaintiffs on two independent grounds. First, the court concluded that USDA exceeded its statutory authority by relying on § 2026(b) to approve the challenged projects. Second, the court concluded that USDA failed to comply with its own notice-and-comment requirements (7 C.F.R. § 282.1(b)) for pilot programs likely to have a significant public impact. The court did not reach the plaintiffs’ arbitrary-and-capricious claim because it found USDA’s approvals unlawful on other grounds.

The court emphasized that it did not evaluate the merits of restricting certain SNAP purchases or whether the pilot programs are a good idea, calling that a “question of policy” not before the court. The court held that any reforms or attempts by USDA to enact such policies must comply with statutory and procedural requirements.

USDA’s Approval of Food Restriction Pilot Projects Exceeded Its Statutory Authority

The court found that § 2026(b) authorizes pilot projects designed to improve administrative efficiency, by reducing bureaucratic steps and facilitating benefit delivery. The court rejected USDA’s argument that food restriction projects aimed at improving health outcomes could be justified as increasing administrative efficiency in SNAP, instead finding that health- and nutrition-focused SNAP pilot projects are governed by a separate provision, 7 U.S.C. § 2026(k).

Section 2026(k) authorizes pilot projects designed to improve the dietary and health status of SNAP eligible households and to reduce obesity and related conditions. Importantly § 2026(k) does not explicitly permit the Secretary of Agriculture to waive the statutory definition of “food” in the Food and Nutrition Act.⁵

The provision provides examples of permissible interventions, all of which contemplate expanding access to healthy foods or increasing purchase power, rather than restricting benefits. Health and nutrition-focused projects can include those that increase benefit allotment, change purchaser and retailer incentives, increase farmers’ market access, strengthen retailer stocking requirements for healthy foods, and improve nutrition education. The district court rejected USDA’s assertion that the agency can pursue projects beyond those listed in § 2026(k), relying on other mandatory language in the provision and legislative history.

The court therefore held that USDA unlawfully approved waivers of the statutory definition of “food” in the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008, allowing states to remove entire categories of products from SNAP eligibility in a manner not authorized by Congress under § 2026(b). The court concluded that because none of the state plans or USDA approvals indicate that the projects would increase SNAP administrative efficiency—and in fact, they would add complexity—USDA cannot rely on § 2026(b) to avoid the requirements and limitations Congress placed in § 2026(k) for health- and nutrition-focused pilot projects.

USDA Did Not Comply with Notice and Comment Obligations Required by Its Own Regulation

The court separately held that USDA violated its own regulation, 7 C.F.R. § 282.1(b), which requires the Food and Nutrition Service (recently changed to the Food and Nutrition Administration) to publish general notice in the Federal Register at least 30 days before a demonstration project begins if the project will likely have a significant impact on the public. USDA issued an informational memo to FNS policy officials on December 30, 2025—one business day before some SNAP waivers took effect—concluding that Federal Register notice was not required for the food restriction waivers because they did not alter SNAP eligibility criteria, benefit allotment levels, or access to staple foods.⁶

The court disagreed, finding that the projects were likely to have a significant impact on the public because they applied to 100% of SNAP households and all SNAP-authorized retailers in the relevant states, imposed new purchase restrictions, required retailer point-of-sale implementation, and required participant and retailer communications and compliance planning. The court cited to op-eds authored by Secretary Rollins and the states’ own evaluation plans as evidence reflecting the projects’ significant impact on the public, as they contemplated measuring changes in food purchasing, consumption, program access, and health-related outcomes.

The court declined to defer to USDA’s interpretation of its own regulation requiring notice to the public. Applying the Supreme Court’s framework for agency interpretations of regulations set forth in Kisor v. Wilkie (2019), the court found that the plain language of the phrase “significant impact on the public” was not genuinely ambiguous, as USDA suggested. The court concluded that USDA had focused its analysis almost exclusively on the impact the projects would have on the SNAP program, whereas § 282.1(b) directs the agency to consider significant impacts on the public.

The court also rejected USDA’s harmless-error argument, concluding that the failure to provide notice deprived affected participants and other stakeholders of the opportunity to submit comments on foreseeable impacts, including impacts on those with specific medical or nutritional needs.

Vacatur of USDA’s Pilot Project Approvals

The court vacated the USDA approval letters for Colorado, Iowa, Nebraska, Tennessee, and West Virginia, as well as USDA’s December 30, 2025 internal memo concluding that no Federal Register notice was required. The practical effect of vacatur under § 706(2) of the Administrative Procedure Act is that the five challenged waiver approvals have been set aside as if they were never issued, and they cannot currently be enforced. The court remanded the matter to USDA and declined to issue a permanent injunction.

The court’s ruling does not prevent USDA or states from pursuing SNAP-related health and nutrition initiatives through lawful mechanisms, but any renewed effort would need to proceed under appropriate statutory authority and comply with procedural requirements.

Implications for Industry and Retailers

The court’s order vacates the approvals, but retailers should continue monitoring USDA and state agency communications for implementation guidance following remand. USDA may appeal the case within 60 days of the decision.

USDA has approved 23 state SNAP waivers since Secretary Rollins’s appointment in February 2025. The court’s decision addressed only the five approvals challenged in the case, but its statutory holding undermines USDA’s reliance on § 2026(b) in other approvals authorizing state restrictions that redefine SNAP-eligible food under the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008.

We will continue to monitor developments in this litigation and USDA’s response on remand. Please contact us with any questions.

Footnotes