WEST VIRGINIA — A federal judge has temporarily blocked efforts to remove soda and certain other products from eligibility under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), a decision that affects West Virginia and more than 20 other states pursuing similar restrictions.
U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson ruled Monday that the U.S. Department of Agriculture does not have the authority to change Congress’ definition of eligible food items under SNAP without legislative action.
West Virginia was among five states — along with Iowa, Nebraska, Colorado and Tennessee — that requested federal waivers between April and August 2025 seeking to prohibit the purchase of products such as soda and soft drinks using SNAP benefits.
The lawsuit challenging those waiver approvals was filed by five SNAP recipients and supported by the National Center for Law and Economic Justice, which argued the USDA exceeded its legal authority.
According to Reuters, the USDA has approved similar food restriction waivers in 23 states. The proposed restrictions were backed by U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as part of the “Make America Healthy Again” initiative.
West Virginia Governor Patrick Morrisey criticized the ruling, saying the state remains committed to encouraging healthier food choices through taxpayer-funded nutrition assistance programs.
Morrisey said he believes public assistance dollars should be used to purchase nutritious foods and indicated the state will continue pursuing policies aimed at improving public health.
The decision was welcomed by the West Virginia Citizen Action Group.
Mindy Holcomb, the organization’s organizing manager, said many SNAP recipients live in communities with limited access to affordable, healthy foods. She argued that expanding access to nutritious options should take priority over restricting what families can purchase with their benefits.
As of the ruling, the U.S. Department of Agriculture had not issued a public statement responding to the court’s decision.
The case could have broader implications for states seeking to limit the types of food and beverages eligible for purchase through the federal nutrition assistance program.
