Summary
The United States District Court for the District of Columbia grants plaintiffs summary judgment in a challenge to USDA approval of state SNAP pilot projects restricting the purchase of certain foods and beverages. The court holds that 7 U.S.C. § 2026(b) does not authorize health-focused food-restriction projects and that the USDA failed to comply with the requirements of § 2026(k) and its notice regulation, 7 C.F.R. § 282.1(b). The court denies defendants’ cross-motion for summary judgment, grants judgment on Counts One and Three, and remands without reaching Count Two.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether plaintiffs had Article III standing to challenge the SNAP food-restriction pilot projects.
- Whether the USDA and Secretary of Agriculture exceeded their statutory authority under 7 U.S.C. § 2026(b) by approving health- and nutrition-focused projects that restricted purchases and altered the statutory definition of food.
- Whether the USDA violated 7 C.F.R. § 282.1(b) by failing to publish Federal Register notices at least thirty days before implementing projects likely to have a significant impact on the public.
- Whether the approvals were arbitrary and capricious under the APA; the Court did not reach this issue after granting relief on Counts One and Three.
Holdings
- SNAP recipients had standing because the challenged restrictions deprived them of part of a government benefit and imposed concrete, particularized financial and health-related burdens, even though they could theoretically purchase the restricted products with other funds.
- The USDA and Secretary exceeded their authority under 7 U.S.C. § 2026(b) by approving pilot projects aimed at improving the health and diet of SNAP recipients and by authorizing restrictions that altered the statutory definition of food. Section 2026(b) authorizes projects concerning SNAP's administrative or logistical efficiency and benefit delivery, not the health-focused projects at issue.
- The USDA violated 7 C.F.R. § 282.1(b) by failing to publish Federal Register notices at least thirty days before implementing the Iowa, Nebraska, West Virginia, and Colorado pilot projects, because the projects were likely to have a significant impact on the public.
Key quotations
“Because the pilot projects in this case did not satisfy the requirements of section 2026(b), the Secretary and the USDA exceeded their authority under that section of the statute.” (48)
“What begins and ends the inquiry is the plain language of section 282.1(b), since it is not “genuinely ambiguous.”” (52)
“The agency's terse statement that the pilot projects would not have a significant impact on the public is entitled to little deference and it is directly contrary to the facts in the administrative record.” (60)
Factual background
The USDA approved Colorado, Iowa, Nebraska, Tennessee, and West Virginia pilot projects that restricted SNAP participants from purchasing specified foods and beverages, including soda, energy drinks, candy, and other products, with SNAP benefits. The approvals relied on 7 U.S.C. § 2026(b), purported to waive portions of the statutory definition of food, applied to the entire SNAP population in each state without opt-outs, and required retailers to enforce the restrictions. The projects were designed primarily to address diet, health, obesity, and chronic disease, and the USDA did not publish Federal Register notices before implementation.
Procedural history
Plaintiffs filed the complaint on March 11, 2026, and sought emergency relief on March 19. The Court consolidated the emergency motion with the merits, deemed it a motion for summary judgment, received the administrative record and cross-motions, held a motions hearing on May 1, 2026, and requested supplemental briefing concerning 7 U.S.C. § 2026(k). The Court granted plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on Counts One and Three, denied defendants' cross-motion, set aside the challenged approvals, and remanded to the agency; it did not reach Count Two.
Remand instructions
The challenged USDA approvals are set aside under 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(C) and § 706(2)(D), and the agency must return to the drawing board to design any pilot projects in accordance with the Food and Nutrition Act and its own notice regulation. The Court did not reach the arbitrary-and-capricious claim in Count Two.