A federal judge has ruled that the government cannot block benefits from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)—the nation’s largest food aid initiative—from being used to purchase candy, soda, and other sugary drinks.

Monday’s decision effectively scuttles active or planned restrictions across 23 states. The Trump administration has not yet stated whether it plans to appeal the ruling to a higher court.

U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson, who was nominated by former President Barack Obama, clarified in her opinion that her decision was not a commentary on the nutritional value of the restrictions, but rather a matter of legal boundaries.

“The federal defendants and the states may have a genuine desire to improve the health of SNAP households by encouraging healthy choices at the store, and they can take lawful steps to meet those goals,” Judge Jackson wrote. “But what they cannot do is violate the law and their own regulations along the way.”

The restrictions were a core component of the administration’s “Make America Healthy Again” (MAHA) campaign. Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins and Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. have actively encouraged states to limit junk food purchases, arguing that taxpayer-funded soda and candy fuel chronic epidemics like obesity and diabetes.

Prior to the ruling, the Agriculture Department had already granted 23 states permission to implement various limits. While the overarching goals were aligned, the specific rules varied significantly by state:

• Some states sought to ban both candy and sugary drinks.

• Other states targeted only sugary beverages.

The push for restrictions had already faced localized pushback. Earlier this year, Colorado’s human services board reversed course and voted against a planned ban.

During a March hearing, SNAP beneficiaries and advocates testified that the rules were overly complicated—such as allowing drinks with 50% fruit juice but banning those with less. Critics also argued that the restrictions would create immense confusion at grocery checkouts and unfairly stigmatize low-income shoppers who might mistakenly try to buy prohibited items.