A U.S. District Court judge has overturned a Trump administration policy that permitted states to prohibit the use of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits for the purchase of sugary beverages and confectionery items.

一名美國地區法院法官推翻了川普政府的一項政策，該政策原允許各州禁止將補充營養援助計劃（SNAP）的福利用於購買含糖飲料與甜食。

The judicial determination, rendered by Judge Amy Berman Jackson, posits that the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) exceeded its statutory authority by attempting to modify the definition of 'food' established by Congress under the Food and Nutrition Act. The court noted that while the administration may seek to improve public health outcomes, such objectives do not grant the agency the power to waive congressional definitions or unilaterally exclude specific food categories from program eligibility. Historically, SNAP benefits have been applicable to all food products intended for human consumption, with the exception of alcohol, tobacco, and prepared hot foods.

由 Amy Berman Jackson 法官做出的司法裁定認為，美國農業部（USDA）企圖修改國會在《食物與營養法》中建立的「食物」定義，已超出其法定權限。法院指出，雖然政府可能尋求改善公共健康結果，但此類目標並不賦予該機構廢除國會定義或單方面將特定食物類別排除在計劃資格之外的權力。歷史上，SNAP 福利適用於所有供人食用的食物產品，酒精、菸草及預製熱食除外。

This legal challenge was initiated by SNAP recipients in Colorado, Iowa, Nebraska, Tennessee, and West Virginia, represented by the National Center for Law and Economic Justice. The plaintiffs contended that such restrictions would destabilize food access and create administrative complexities for recipients, including those managing chronic illnesses. Although the ruling specifically addresses the five plaintiff states, its implications extend to 23 states—including Texas, Florida, and Virginia—that had received USDA waivers to implement similar pilot programs. These programs varied in scope, with some targeting only soft drinks and others encompassing broader categories of taxable or sugary items.

這次法律挑戰是由科羅拉多州、愛荷華州、內布拉斯加州、田納西州及西維吉尼亞州的 SNAP 受益人發起，由國家法律與經濟正義中心代表。原告方主張，此類限制將使食物獲取變得不穩定，並為受益人（包括管理慢性疾病者）創造行政複雜性。雖然裁定具體針對五個原告州，但其影響延伸至 23 個州——包括德克薩斯州、佛羅里達州及維吉尼亞州——這些州曾收到 USDA 的豁免以實施類似的試行計劃。這些計劃的範圍不一，有些僅針對軟飲料，有些則涵蓋更廣泛的課稅或含糖項目。

From a policy perspective, the restrictions were a component of the 'Make America Healthy Again' initiative, championed by Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins. The administration characterized the measure as a necessary intervention to mitigate the prevalence of obesity and diabetes and to prevent the utilization of taxpayer funds for products that contribute to chronic disease. Conversely, advocacy groups such as the Food Research & Action Center suggest that this ruling provides a legal framework for challenging other USDA restrictions based on the same procedural assumptions.

從政策角度來看，這些限制是「讓美國再次健康」倡議的一部分，由衛生及公共服務部長 Robert F. Kennedy Jr. 及農業部長 Brooke Rollins 主導。政府將該措施描述為減緩肥胖與糖尿病盛行率，以及防止納稅人資金用於導致慢性疾病產品的必要干預。相反，如食物研究與行動中心（Food Research & Action Center）等倡議團體認為，此次裁定為挑戰其他基於相同程序假設的 USDA 限制提供了法律框架。

The ruling reinstates the long-standing federal guidelines for SNAP purchases, although the USDA has indicated it may seek alternative legal avenues to implement nutritional restrictions.

此次裁定恢復了 SNAP 採購的長期聯邦指南，儘管 USDA 已表示可能會尋求其他法律途徑以實施營養限制。