A federal judge ruled Monday that the U.S. Department of Agriculture exceeded its authority by approving state restrictions that barred Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program recipients from purchasing certain foods.

In March, SNAP beneficiaries in several states sued the USDA over waivers that prohibited the purchase of items such as candy and soda through the food assistance program. The plaintiffs argued that the agency did not have the legal authority to determine which foods qualified for purchase.

Formerly known as food stamps, SNAP provides assistance to about 42 million Americans.

U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson of the District of Columbia found that the waivers conflicted with Congress’s definition of “food” and improperly changed the types of items that can be purchased through SNAP.

“Congress defined what ‘food’ is supposed to be, and it did not authorize the agency to amend or waive the definition it enacted,” the judge wrote. “It did not authorize the agency to cut types of food out of SNAP entirely.”

Federal law generally allows SNAP benefits to be used for any food intended for home consumption, with exceptions including alcohol, tobacco, and hot prepared meals.

Jackson said the USDA defended the waivers as a means of increasing the efficiency of the SNAP program.

However, she determined that “none of the state plans or USDA approvals indicate that the pilot projects might ‘increase the efficiency’ of the SNAP program within the meaning of the statute.”

The National Retail Federation had warned that the restrictions would likely lead to longer checkout lines and more customer complaints.

A separate report from the National Grocers Association and other trade groups estimated that implementing the SNAP restrictions would cost retailers $1.6 billion upfront and another $759 million annually.

“Punishing SNAP recipients means we all get to pay more at the grocery store,” said Gina Plata-Nino, SNAP director for the anti-hunger advocacy group Food Research & Action Center.

Supporters of the waivers, including Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., argued that the restrictions would prevent government funds from being used to purchase highly processed foods that may harm health.

“We cannot continue a system that forces taxpayers to fund programs that make people sick and then pay a second time to treat the illnesses those very programs help create,” Kennedy said in a statement in December.

Kennedy has said the measures are part of a broader push to reduce chronic conditions such as obesity and diabetes linked to sugary drinks and other unhealthy foods, a key objective of his Make America Healthy Again initiative.

Jackson stressed that her decision did not address the merits of the policy or discount concerns about nutrition, noting that improving nutrition is not among the statutory reasons the government can use to waive SNAP requirements.

“The Court’s analysis should not be taken as a comment on whether the pilot projects are a good idea or not. That is a question of policy that is not before the Court,” Jackson wrote in her ruling.

The decision immediately blocks restrictions that had already taken effect or were scheduled to begin in Colorado, Iowa, Nebraska, Tennessee, and West Virginia. It could also affect other SNAP restrictions based on the same legal rationale.

Jackson said the USDA “will have to go back to the drawing board to design pilot projects that accord with [federal law].”

She noted that Congress has authorized the USDA to test certain initiatives aimed at improving health and nutrition through SNAP, but the agency did not invoke that section of federal law, which carries strict requirements, when approving the state waivers.

The Trump administration has not indicated whether it plans to appeal the ruling.

Legal experts noted that if the administration seeks to permanently restrict or prohibit certain SNAP purchases, Congress may have to amend the laws governing the program.

In a statement, the USDA said it remains committed to advancing the goals of the “Make America Healthy Again” initiative.

“The idea that taxpayer funds should not be used to purchase junk food should not be controversial,” the USDA said. “USDA will not be backing down from the fight to Make America Healthy Again, including for families and communities reliant on SNAP.”