![\"SNAP](\"https:\/\/www.diningandcooking.com\/us\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/09\/GettyImages-1587564413-2.jpg\"\/)
<\/p>\nPlanned restrictions on what Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) recipients can buy have been delayed in two states following a federal court ruling that struck down similar policies in other states.<\/p>\n
South Carolina and North Dakota had been preparing to implement new SNAP food-purchasing restrictions around the beginning of September. Both will now wait until November 1, after the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) directed the states to postpone the changes while it responds to the court decision and goes through a public notice process.<\/p>\n
SNAP benefits are paid to millions of low- and no-income households across the U.S. to help with the cost of groceries. Several states have, since the start of the second Trump administration in January 2025, requested waivers from the USDA to place bans on the purchase of unhealthy food and drinks using benefits.<\/p>\n
Read More on News<\/p>\n
South Carolina’s Healthy Food SC project had been scheduled to begin on August 31, while North Dakota’s Healthy Choice Waiver was due to take effect on September 1. The USDA had approved both states’ proposals in December 2025.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
In an August 25 letter to the South Carolina Department of Social Services, the USDA’s Food and Nutrition Administration (FNA) said its Office of General Counsel and the Department of Justice were continuing to review a recent court order that vacated food-restriction waiver approvals in five other states: Colorado, Iowa, Nebraska, Tennessee and West Virginia. <\/p>\n
A spokesperson for the USDA told Newsweek the department would not comment on matters relating to pending litigation.<\/p>\n
The agency said it would publish a notice concerning South Carolina’s waiver in the Federal Register at least 30 days before implementation and asked the state to delay the project until November 1 so it could assess public comments first.<\/p>\n
North Dakota officials received a similar August 25 letter, according to the North Dakota Monitor. Acting FNA Administrator Shiela Corley asked the state to postpone its restrictions while the USDA published a Federal Register notice and considered public feedback.<\/p>\n
North Dakota Health and Human Services confirmed that “at the direction of” the federal agency, it had requested the September 1 start date be moved to November 1.<\/p>\n
What Would Change<\/p>\n
Under federal rules that generally apply across the country, SNAP benefits can currently be used for foods including fruits and vegetables, meat, dairy products, breads, cereals, snack foods and non-alcoholic beverages. Alcohol, tobacco, hot food sold for immediate consumption and non-food products are among the items that cannot be purchased.<\/p>\n
Food-restriction waivers allow individual states to implement narrower rules by excluding additional products.<\/p>\n
North Dakota’s waiver would prevent SNAP benefits from being used for sweetened beverages, certain energy drinks and candy. The state’s rules include drinks with at least five grams of added sugar or artificial sweeteners and less than 50 percent fruit or vegetable juice, as well as specified energy drinks containing high levels of caffeine or other stimulants.<\/p>\n
Examples listed by North Dakota include soda, sweetened tea and lemonade, sports and electrolyte drinks and some bottled coffee drinks. Milk, unsweetened beverages, 100 percent juice and certain other products would remain eligible. <\/p>\n
South Carolina’s waiver similarly targets candy, energy drinks, soft drinks and sweetened beverages. However, its definitions differ. Diet and zero-sugar soft drinks, for example, remain eligible, while milk-based drinks, drinks made with at least 50 percent natural fruit or vegetable juice without added caloric sweetener, sports drinks and beverages for certain medical uses are also excluded from the restrictions.<\/p>\n
The changes affect only whether SNAP benefits can be used for those items. Recipients could still purchase restricted products using another form of payment.<\/p>\n
Court Battle<\/p>\n
The delays follow the June 22 decision in Aragon v. Rollins, a lawsuit brought by SNAP recipients in Colorado, Iowa, Nebraska, Tennessee and West Virginia challenging the USDA’s approval of food-restriction projects in their states.<\/p>\n
U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson ruled in favor of the plaintiffs on two grounds.<\/p>\n
The court found that the USDA used the wrong legal authority to approve the restrictions because the provision it relied on covers projects aimed at improving SNAP administration rather than changing participants’ diets or health outcomes. It also ruled that USDA failed to follow its own requirement to publish notice in the Federal Register at least 30 days before such projects begin.<\/p>\n
The judge, therefore, vacated the USDA’s approvals for the five states. The decision did not directly vacate the North Dakota or South Carolina waivers, which were not among those challenged in the case.<\/p>\n
Elsewhere in the country, unhealthy food waivers are already active, including in Arkansas, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Texas and Utah.<\/p>\n
Federal Push to Restrict SNAP Purchases<\/p>\n
The waivers form part of the Trump administration’s broader effort to change the nutritional rules surrounding SNAP under its Make America Healthy Again initiative.<\/p>\n
So far, 23 states have received approvals, although five of those approvals are now vacated following the June court decision. The restrictions differ by state, ranging from bans on soft drinks alone to broader exclusions covering candy, energy drinks and prepared desserts.<\/p>\n
Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins has repeatedly encouraged governors to pursue the restrictions. When Montana became the 23rd state to join the initiative in May, Rollins said that the USDA hoped to “sign waivers for all 50 states soon.”<\/p>\n
When the USDA approved the North Dakota and South Carolina waivers in December, Rollins said the administration was seeking to return SNAP’s focus to nutrition and encourage families to purchase healthier food, rather than what it considers junk food.<\/p>\n
What Happens Next<\/p>\n
For now, recipients in North Dakota and South Carolina will continue operating under existing SNAP purchasing rules while the federal government completes the additional review process ahead of the proposed November 1 start date.<\/p>\n
Contact Newsweek editors on this story: John Fitzpatrick and Dave Siminoff.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Planned restrictions on what Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) recipients can buy have been delayed in two states following a federal court ruling that struck down similar policies in other states. South Carolina and North Dakota had been preparing to implement new SNAP food-purchasing restrictions around the beginning of September. Both will now wait until<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":5987,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[48],"tags":[435,4470,3051,6557,6555,6558,6556,1176,3050,3045,5495],"class_list":["post-5986","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-north-dakota","tag-food-stamps","tag-junk-food","tag-north-dakota","tag-north-dakota-dining","tag-north-dakota-food","tag-north-dakota-grocery-stores","tag-north-dakota-restaurants","tag-snap-benefits","tag-south-carolina","tag-usda","tag-welfare"],"share_on_mastodon":{"url":"https:\/\/vive.im\/@dc\/117262630725265980","error":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.diningandcooking.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5986","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.diningandcooking.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.diningandcooking.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.diningandcooking.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.diningandcooking.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5986"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.diningandcooking.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5986\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.diningandcooking.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/5987"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.diningandcooking.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5986"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.diningandcooking.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5986"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.diningandcooking.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5986"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}