Food Stamp Recipients Sue USDA Over Sugary Drinks Ban

Five people who receive Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits have sued the U.S. Department of Agriculture in federal court over the new state bans on using SNAP to buy soda, candy, energy drinks, and prepared desserts. The case, Aragon v. Rollins, was filed March 11, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia and argues that the USDA had no legal authority to let states rewrite the list of foods SNAP dollars can buy.{¹}{²}

The plaintiffs are Nieves Aragon of Brighton, Colorado; Marc Craig of Des Moines, Iowa; Nathan Fleming of Lincoln, Nebraska; Amanda Johnson of Knoxville, Tennessee; and Sarah Starks of Charleston, West Virginia. They are represented by the National Center for Law and Economic Justice and the litigation firm Shinder Cantor Lerner. The defendants are the USDA and Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins.{³}{⁴}

What the Lawsuit Argues

Federal law defines SNAP-eligible food broadly as “any food or food product for home consumption,” with a short list of statutory exceptions covering alcohol, tobacco, hot prepared foods, and a few other categories.{⁵} Soda, candy, and snack foods have always fallen inside that definition.{⁶}

The complaint makes two central claims. First, the plaintiffs argue that Congress wrote the definition of eligible food into the statute and that the USDA cannot narrow it through waivers. The agency relied on Section 17 of the Food and Nutrition Act, which lets the Secretary run pilot projects “designed to increase the efficiency of SNAP and improve the delivery” of benefits. The plaintiffs say that authority was meant for testing administrative and operational changes, not for rewriting what counts as food. In their words, the USDA “narrowed the statutory definition of ‘food’ haphazardly” without the legal power to do so.{⁷}{⁸}

Second, the suit alleges the USDA violated the Administrative Procedure Act by skipping the notice-and-comment rulemaking that federal agencies must ordinarily complete before making a significant policy change. According to the complaint, the waivers functioned as a “backdoor” national rewrite of SNAP rules without the public process the APA requires.{⁹}

Jeffrey Shinder, founding partner of Shinder Cantor Lerner, said the USDA was bypassing “strict guardrails” Congress established for SNAP and attempting to “empower states to curtail access to SNAP in ways that will create significant hardship on recipients and retailers.”{⁴}

The plaintiffs also describe concrete harms: confusion at the register about what can and cannot be bought, difficulty managing specific health conditions that depend on particular products, and the burden of paying out of pocket for items SNAP would previously have covered.{¹⁰}

Where the Case Stands

The case is before U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson. On March 19, 2026, the plaintiffs filed an emergency motion for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction. At a scheduling conference the following day, Judge Jackson consolidated the injunction request with a decision on the merits, converting the plaintiffs’ motion into one for summary judgment. That means the court will decide the underlying legal questions without a full trial.{¹¹}

A hearing took place on May 1, 2026. Judge Jackson took the matter under advisement and, on May 4, requested supplemental briefing from both sides on the scope of the USDA’s authority under 7 U.S.C. § 2026, the pilot-project statute. Supplemental briefs were due May 8. As of mid-2026, no ruling has been issued. The USDA has declined to comment, referring inquiries to the Department of Justice.{¹¹}{¹²}

Because the injunction request was folded into the merits, whatever Judge Jackson decides will likely answer the central statutory question directly rather than simply pause the restrictions while litigation continues.{¹¹}

Which States Have the Bans and What They Cover

The USDA approved the first waivers in May 2025 for Nebraska, Indiana, and Iowa, each structured as a two-year pilot. Nebraska restricted soda and energy drinks. Indiana banned soft drinks and candy. Iowa went furthest, restricting all taxable food items as defined by state revenue rules.{¹³}{⁸}

By late March 2026, 22 states had approved waivers, with implementation dates ranging from January 2026 through early 2028: Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wyoming. At least eight additional applications are in the pipeline.{¹³}{⁸}

The rules differ sharply from state to state. In Iowa, a Twix bar is allowed because it contains flour, while a flourless granola bar with chocolate chips may be blocked as “candy.” Idaho can reach the opposite result. Virginia treats sweetened iced tea and lemonade as eligible but bars certain sparkling sweetened fruit juices; Texas flips those rules. Indiana permits “fitness” drinks but not “sports” drinks, and whether something counts as soda can turn on whether it contains milk or juice-based sweeteners.{¹⁴}{¹⁵}

Recipients have reported that the same product may scan as eligible at one store and be rejected at another, and that products used to manage conditions like ADHD, migraines, or narrow food preferences tied to autism have suddenly been disqualified.{¹⁵}{¹⁶}

What Happens While the Case Is Pending

The restrictions remain in effect in states that have begun implementing them. Because Judge Jackson consolidated the emergency injunction request with the merits, there is no separate order pausing the bans while the court deliberates. Additional states are on track to roll out their own versions through 2026 and into 2027, and the USDA continues to process new waiver applications.{⁸}{¹¹}

If you receive SNAP in one of the 22 approved states, what you can buy is governed by your state’s waiver terms until Judge Jackson rules or the USDA changes course. The lawsuit itself does not suspend any state’s restrictions.

The Separate Congressional Track

A ruling in Aragon would not settle the underlying policy fight. Legislation has been introduced in Congress to make the restrictions permanent by statute. The Healthy SNAP Act, sponsored by Senator Mike Lee of Utah and Representative Josh Brecheen of Oklahoma, would amend the Food and Nutrition Act to exclude soft drinks, candy, ice cream, and prepared desserts from SNAP eligibility and would require the Agriculture Secretary to review the list every five years.{¹⁷}{} The House version was referred to the Subcommittee on Nutrition and Foreign Agriculture in February 2025 and has not advanced.{¹⁸} If that bill or a similar one passed, it would change the statute the plaintiffs are relying on and largely moot their argument that Congress never authorized the current restrictions.

1
Court Listener. Aragon v. Rollins Docket
2
The New York Times. USDA Sued Over SNAP Soda Ban
3
NCLEJ. Aragon v. Rollins Complaint
4
NCLEJ. Trump Administration Sued Over SNAP Food Restriction Waivers
5
eCFR. Title 7, Subtitle B, Chapter II, Subchapter C, Part 271
6
Food and Nutrition Administration. SNAP Eligible Food Items
7
NCLEJ. Food Stamp Recipients Sue Over Bans on Sugary Drinks
8
USDA Food and Nutrition Service. SNAP Food Restriction Waivers
9
AL.com. SNAP Recipients Sue USDA Over Restrictions on Soda, Candy, and Energy Drinks
10
NCLEJ. SNAP Recipients Sue USDA Over Sugary Food and Drink Restrictions
11
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse. Aragon v. Rollins Case Summary
12
Food Fix. SNAP Lawsuit Targets MAHA’s Top Trump-Era Policy Win
13
Civil Eats. USDA Approves More SNAP Waivers Limiting Soda and Candy
14
The New York Times. SNAP Benefits Food Stamps Rules Health
15
Indiana Capital Chronicle. SNAP Retailers, Shoppers Pan Indiana Sugary Drinks, Candy Ban
16
Civil Eats. Confusion and More Chaos as States Implement SNAP Food Restrictions
17
U.S. Senate — Office of Senator Mike Lee. Lee Introduces Healthy SNAP Act
18
U.S. Congress. H.R. 479 — Healthy SNAP Act of 2025