In a 68-page opinion, a D.C. federal court vacated U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) waivers issued to five states regarding Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) participants’ purchasing options.
In Aragon v. Rollins, the court granted summary judgment against the government defendants and vacated USDA waivers, thus prohibiting Colorado, Iowa, Nebraska, Tennessee, and West Virginia from excluding certain foods, such as soft drinks and candy, for eligibility for purchase with SNAP dollars.
Background
SNAP is a federally funded, state-administered program that provides monetary benefits to low-income households to purchase eligible food products from participating retailers. While states administer SNAP benefits, federal law governs the program. Under federal law, SNAP beneficiaries obtain SNAP dollars to purchase “food,” which is statutorily defined as “any food or food product for home consumption except alcoholic beverages, tobacco, hot foods or hot food products ready for immediate consumption.” 7 U.S.C. § 2012(k).
USDA also has the authority to conduct pilot programs. Among other things, USDA may conduct pilot programs to “improve the dietary and health status of households eligible for or participating in [SNAP]” and “to reduce overweight, obesity ... , and associated co-morbidities.” 7 U.S.C. § 2026(b). When USDA authorizes such pilot programs that are likely to have a significant impact on the public, federal regulation requires the agency to post notice in the Federal Register 30 days before implementation. 7 C.F.R. § 282.1(b).
As of June 2026, USDA authorized waiver requests that augmented the definition of “food” and approved pilot programs that allowed the states to exclude certain foods and beverages from purchase with SNAP benefits from 23 states, including the five states at issue in Aragon.
The Aragon decision
In Aragon, the court held that USDA exceeded its statutory authority in approving the waivers and failed to comply with the agency’s own procedural notice requirements for initiating the pilot programs.
The ruling included that USDA lacked statutory authority to approve the pilot programs. Specifically, the court concluded that the agency had exceeded its authority when it narrowed the statutory definition of “food” to exclude the foods identified in the waivers.
The court also found that the USDA failed to satisfy required procedural steps before implementing the pilot programs. Although USDA argued that notice was not required, the court disagreed and held that notice was required and the agency’s failure to provide notice violated USDA’s own regulations.
What is next?
The Aragon decision applies only to the SNAP waivers granted to Colorado, Iowa, Nebraska, Tennessee, and West Virginia. While the waivers granted to other states are not directly affected, they may be subject to similar statutory and procedural challenges. The USDA has 60 days to bring an appeal.
