A federal court has struck down a Colorado plan to bar recipients of food assistance benefits from purchasing soda, energy drinks, candy, and high-sugar snacks using their SNAP benefits — a ruling that also affects similar restrictions approved for several other states.
Why It Matters
The decision halts one of the more prominent state-level efforts to reshape the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, which serves millions of low-income Americans. The outcome carries direct implications for Colorado households, the state’s public health agenda, and the Trump administration’s broader Make America Healthy Again initiative, which had backed the restrictions.
What Happened
U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson ruled that the Department of Agriculture does not have the legal authority to remove entire food categories from SNAP eligibility. The ruling was issued this week and came in response to a lawsuit filed in March by SNAP recipients in five states, including Colorado.
The plan had been championed by Gov. Jared Polis, whose office proposed the restrictions on sugary beverages and snacks. However, before the court weighed in, the policy had already run into resistance at the state level. Colorado’s nine-member state human services board — whose members are all appointed by the governor — rejected the policy following a daylong hearing in March.
Board members expressed concern about the dignity and autonomy of SNAP recipients and flagged a specific medical risk: people with diabetes sometimes require rapid sugar intake to manage blood sugar emergencies, and a blanket ban on sugary products could put those individuals at risk.
Opposition to the policy was broad. Homeless advocacy organizations, Save the Children, Hunger Free Colorado, and 27 Democratic state lawmakers had all come out against the restrictions.
Polis responded to Tuesday’s ruling with frustration. “I’m disappointed in this ruling, which will lead to higher diabetes rates and more tooth decay and dental bills for people,” he said in an emailed statement.
The governor had also signed a separate executive order prohibiting the state from purchasing sugary drinks for official government functions — an action unaffected by the court’s ruling.
By the Numbers
- 5 states whose SNAP recipients joined the March lawsuit
- 9 members on the Colorado state human services board, all governor-appointed
- 27 Democratic state lawmakers who formally opposed the plan
- October was the previously scheduled implementation date, contingent on board approval
Zoom Out
The Colorado effort was not isolated. Federal regulators had approved similar SNAP purchase restrictions in multiple states before Judge Jackson’s ruling — making the decision a significant setback for a wave of state-level nutrition initiatives that had gained traction under the current federal administration. Judge Jackson, who was nominated to the bench by former President Barack Obama, centered her ruling on the scope of USDA’s statutory authority rather than the policy merits of the restrictions themselves.
The ruling is widely seen as a blow to the Trump administration’s Make America Healthy Again agenda, which had positioned SNAP dietary restrictions as a tool for reducing diet-related disease among low-income populations. Supporters of that effort argue that public health benefits justify limiting what taxpayer-funded assistance can purchase; opponents contend that such restrictions are paternalistic, stigmatizing, and impractical.
What’s Next
With the federal court order now in place, Colorado’s October implementation timeline is effectively on hold. It remains unclear whether the USDA or the states with approved waivers will pursue an appeal. The Colorado Department of Human Services had indicated the ban would take effect in October pending board approval — a condition the board had already declined to meet before the court ruling added a second barrier.
The legal question of USDA’s authority over SNAP food categories may ultimately require resolution at the appellate level or through Congressional action if the administration wants to revive the restrictions.
For more on Colorado policy and legal developments, see recent coverage of the Colorado House advancing a bill allowing conversion therapy lawsuits following a recent Supreme Court remand.