Aragon v. Rollins

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ____________________________________ ) NIEVES ARAGON, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 26-0861 (ABJ) ) BROOKE ROLLINS, ) in her official capacity as ) Secretary of Agriculture, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ____________________________________) MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiffs Nieves Aragon, Marc Craig, Nathan Fleming, Amanda Johnson, and Hunter Starks are individuals who participate in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (“SNAP”) in Colorado, Iowa, Nebraska, Tennessee, and West Virginia. Compl. [Dkt. # 1] ¶¶ 18–22. SNAP is a federally funded, state-administered program that provides monetary benefits to low-income households to buy authorized food products at participating retailers. 7 U.S.C. §§ 2011–14. Plaintiffs brought this action against the United States Department of Agriculture (“USDA”) and Brooke Rollins, in her official capacity as Secretary of Agriculture (“Secretary”), to challenge their approval of state pilot projects that restrict SNAP participants from buying certain foods and beverages with SNAP benefits. Compl. ¶¶ 1–14, 23. The complaint consists of three counts under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. § 701 et seq., claiming that defendants exceeded their statutory authority, failed to engage in reasoned decision-making, and disregarded a mandatory procedural requirement when approving the pilot projects. Compl. ¶ 14.  Plaintiffs filed the complaint on March 11, 2026, and on March 19, they filed an emergency motion for a temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction, and a stay pending review under 5 U.S.C. § 705. Pls.’ Mot. for a TRO, Prelim. Inj., & Other Relief [Dkt. # 9] (“Pls.’ Mot.”). After a scheduling hearing in which it heard from the parties, the Court consolidated consideration of the emergency motion with the resolution of the case on the merits. Minute Order (Mar. 20, 2026). It deemed plaintiffs’ emergency motion to be a motion for summary judgment, established a briefing schedule, and set a motions hearing for May 1, 2026. Id. On April 3, 2026, defendants filed the administrative record and their combined cross- motion for summary judgment and opposition to plaintiffs’ motion. Admin. R. [Dkt. # 17] (“A.R.”); Defs.’ Cross-Mot. for Summ. J & Opp. to Pls.’ Mot. [Dkt. # 18] (“Defs.’ Cross-Mot.”). The motions have been fully briefed by the parties, and two amicus briefs have been submitted as well. See Pls.’ Reply in Supp. of Pls.’ Mot. & Opp. to Defs.’ Cross-Mot. [Dkt. # 24] (“Pls.’ Opp.”); Defs.’ Reply to Pls.’ Opp. [Dkt. # 29] (“Defs.’ Reply”); Br. of the Found. for Gov’t Accountability as Amicus Curiae in Supp. of Defs. [Dkt. # 30] (“Foundation Amicus Br.”); Br. of the States of Nebraska, Iowa, Tennessee, and West Virginia as Amicus Curiae in Supp. of Defs. [Dkt. # 32] (“States’ Amicus Br.”). The Court held a hearing on the motions on May 1, see Minute Entry (May 1, 2026), and called for supplemental briefing to address the effect of 7 U.S.C. § 2026(k) on the statutory scheme at issue. See Minute Order (May 4, 2026); Pls.’ Suppl. Mem. [Dkt. # 34]; Defs.’ Suppl. Mem. [Dkt. # 35]. 2  Upon consideration of the entire record, for the reasons stated below, plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment will be GRANTED, and defendants’ cross-motion for summary judgment will be DENIED. The Court will grant summary judgment in favor of plaintiffs on Counts One and Three, and given those rulings and the remand to be ordered, it need not address Count Two. The section of the statute the Secretary relies upon as authorization to approve the projects at issue, 7 U.S.C. § 2026(b), does not cover projects aimed towards improving the health of SNAP recipients, and the agency sidestepped the section of the statute that does address those projects, section 2026(k) – which sets out strict requirements they must meet – entirely. Section 2026(b) authorizes projects related to the administrative and logistical efficiency of the SNAP program itself, but the set of projects here all focus on banning certain products, such as soda or candy, to tackle the health, nutrition, and obesity issues prevalent in the low- income population. Meanwhile, section 2026(k) authorizes the Secretary to approve projects to “us[e] [SNAP] to improve the dietary and health status of households eligible for or participating in [SNAP]” and “to reduce overweight, obesity . . . , and associated co-morbidities.” With her solicitation and approval of the pilot projects in this case, the Secretary purports to waive not just a mere administrative or technical obstacle, but the very definition of “food” as it was laid down by Congress. Neither the USDA nor the states can force this square peg into a round hole to avoid the plain language of the statute and the requirements of 2026(k). Defendants also failed to abide by the notice requirement of their own regulation, 7 C.F.R. § 282.1(b), which requires the USDA to post notice of pilot projects in the Federal Register thirty days before implementation if they are likely to have a significant impact on the public. The agency’s terse statement that the pilot projects would not have a significant impact 3 on the public is entitled to little deference and it is directly contrary to the facts in the administrative record. 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. 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. But what they cannot do is violate the law and their own regulations along the way. BACKGROUND A. Statutory Background In 1964, Congress passed the Food Stamp Act, Pub. L. No. 88-525, 78 Stat. 703 (1964), to establish a “cooperative Federal-State program of food assistance” with the purpose of providing “improved levels of nutrition among low-income households.” Congress later replaced the Food Stamp Act with the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (“FNA”), 7 U.S.C. § 2011 et seq., which renamed the Food Stamp Program as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or “SNAP.” Pub. L. No. 110-246, §§ 4001–02, 122 Stat. 1853 (2008). But Congress underscored that the objective of the legislation remained: To alleviate such hunger and malnutrition, a supplemental nutrition assistance program is herein authorized which will permit low-income households to obtain a more nutritious diet . . . by increasing food purchasing power for all eligible households who apply for participation. 7 U.S.C. § 2011; see id. (“[T]o promote the general welfare, to safeguard the health and well- being of the Nation’s population by raising levels of nutrition among low-income households.”). SNAP operates through the federal and state governments. The federal legislature appropriates funds to the program, and the Secretary and Department of Agriculture are authorized “to formulate and administer” the program “at the request of the State agency.” Id. 4 § 2013(a). The Secretary establishes “uniform national standards for eligibility,” “prescribe[s] appropriate procedures for the delivery of benefits,” and promulgates regulations that apply nationwide to the program. Id. §§ 2014(b), 2016(d); see generally id. §§ 2014–2016. And the Department’s Food and Nutrition Service (“FNS”) is charged with federal oversight of the program, which includes responsibility for the monitoring and compliance of retailers who participate in SNAP. A.R. 185. States that participate in SNAP designate a single agency to be responsible for day-to-day administration of the program and compliance with federal requirements. 7 U.S.C. § 2020(a). Individual “households” apply to the state agency for SNAP benefits, and if they are approved, the benefits are loaded onto an electronic benefit transfer card (“EBT card”) that can be used at participating retailers to purchase products in the same manner as a debit card. Id. §§ 2014, 2016(h), 2020(a)(1). While the Food and Nutrition Act accords some discretion to the states in how they administer SNAP, see id. § 2020 (state administration), federal law contains definitions of key terms that apply universally. See id. § 2012 (definitions). Those definitions include the term “[f]ood,” which is statutorily defined as “any food or food product for home consumption except alcoholic beverages, tobacco, hot foods or hot food products ready for immediate consumption.” Id. § 2012(k).1 Under USDA regulation, SNAP benefits can only be used to purchase “food” as defined by the statute. 7 C.F.R. § 274.8. Section 2026(b) of the Food and Nutrition Act authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to “conduct on a trial basis, . . . pilot or experimental projects designed to test program changes that 1 The definition of food also contains several specific carveouts for certain groups, such as persons over the age of sixty and participants who are disabled, but those are not at issue in this case. See 7 U.S.C § 2012(k). 5 might increase the efficiency of [SNAP] and improve the delivery of [SNAP] benefits to eligible households.” 7 U.S.C. § 2026(b)(1)(A). Under this section, the Secretary “may waive any requirement of [the Act] to the extent necessary” for a project to be conducted. Id. Pilot projects under section 2026(b) “may not be conducted unless (i) the project is consistent with the goal of [SNAP] of providing food assistance to raise levels of nutrition among low-income individuals; and (ii) the project includes an evaluation to determine the effects of the project.” Id. § 2026(b)(1)(B)(i). According to the statute, the “Permissible purposes” of such projects are: (1) to “improve program administration”; (2) to “increase the self-sufficiency of [SNAP] recipients”; (3) to “test innovative welfare reform strategies”; or (4) to “allow greater conformity with the rules of other programs than would be allowed but for this paragraph.” Id. § 2026(b)(1)(B)(ii). An entirely separate provision of the statute, section 2026(k), authorizes the Secretary to carry out pilot projects to for the specific purpose of: (1) “using [SNAP] to improve the dietary and health status of households eligible for or participating in the supplemental nutrition assistance program”; and (2) “to reduce overweight, obesity (including childhood obesity), and associated co-morbidities.” Id. § 2026(k)(1). This provision requires that the Secretary’s selection of projects “must be evaluated against publicly disseminated criteria,” including: (i) identification of a low-income target audience that corresponds to individuals living in households with incomes at or below 185 percent of the poverty level; (ii) incorporation of a scientifically based strategy that is designed to improve diet quality through more healthful food purchases, preparation, or consumption; (iii) a commitment to a pilot project that allows for a rigorous outcome evaluation, including data collection; 6  (iv) strategies to improve the nutritional value of food served during school hours and during after-school hours; (v) innovative ways to provide significant improvement to the health and wellness of children; (vi) other criteria, as determined by the Secretary. Id. § 2026(k)(2)(C) (subsection titled “Selection criteria”). Pilot projects under section 2026(k) “may” include those that “determine whether healthier food purchases by and healthier diets among households participating in [SNAP] result from projects that”: (A) increase the supplemental nutrition assistance purchasing power of the participating households by providing increased supplemental nutrition assistance program benefit allotments to the participating households; (B) increase access to farmers’ markets by participating households through the electronic redemption of supplemental nutrition assistance program benefits at farmers’ markets; (C) provide incentives to authorized supplemental nutrition assistance program retailers to increase the availability of healthy foods to participating households; (D) subject authorized supplemental nutrition assistance program retailers to stricter retailer requirements with respect to carrying and stocking healthful foods; (E) provide incentives at the point of purchase to encourage households participating in the supplemental nutrition assistance program to purchase fruits, vegetables, or other healthful foods; or (F) provide to participating households integrated communication and education programs, including the provision of funding for a portion of a school-based nutrition coordinator to implement a broad nutrition action plan and parent nutrition education programs in elementary schools, separately or in combination with pilot projects carried out under subparagraphs (A) through (E). Id. § 2026(k)(3)(A)–(F). 7  The USDA has promulgated regulations governing the approval of pilot projects under either section 2026(b) or section 2026(k). These include a notice provision: At least 30 days prior to the initiation of a demonstration project, FNS shall publish a General Notice in the Federal Register if the demonstration project will likely have a significant impact on the public. The notice shall set forth the specific operational procedures and shall explain the basis and purpose of the demonstration project. If significant comments are received in response to this General Notice, the Department will take such action as may be appropriate prior to implementing the project. If the operational procedures contained in the General Notice described above are significantly changed because of comments, an amended General Notice will be published in the Federal Register at least 30 days prior to the initiation of the demonstration project, except where good cause exists supporting a shorter effective date. The explanation for the determination of good cause will be published with the amended General Notice. The amended General Notice will also explain the basis and purpose of the change. 7 C.F.R. § 282.1(b). Finally, the Food and Nutrition Act lays out consequences for households and retailers that fail to abide by program rules. If a federal court, state court, or an administrative agency finds that a participant has used their SNAP benefits in violation of the FNA or the USDA’s regulations, the participant “shall, immediately upon the rendering of such determination, become ineligible for further participation in the program.” 7 U.S.C. § 2015(b)(1). Individuals who knowingly use SNAP benefits “in any manner contrary to the [FNA] or the regulations issued pursuant to [the FNA]” can also be subject to criminal penalties. See id. § 2024(b)(1) (listing felony and misdemeanor penalties). Retailers can also be disqualified from the program if they accept SNAP benefits for impermissible purposes. Id. § 2021(a)(1)(A); 7 C.F.R. § 278.1(l). B. Factual Background This case concerns pilot projects that the Secretary and the USDA solicited and approved in Colorado, Iowa, Nebraska, Tennessee, and West Virginia. For each project, the state sought a 8 “waiver” to exempt certain foods and beverages from the Food and Nutrition Act’s definition of “food,” and in turn, each project bars SNAP participants from purchasing those foods and beverages with SNAP benefits. The federal defendants approved all of the projects in reliance upon their authority under 7 U.S.C. § 2026(b), and every project encompasses all of the SNAP participants in the given state, with no opt-outs for any participant on any basis. The projects have already begun in Colorado, Iowa, Nebraska, and West Virginia, and the Tennessee project is scheduled to go into effect on July 31, 2026. The administrative record contains a similar set of documents related to the approval of each pilot project, including: (1) the state’s request proposing the pilot project; (2) the USDA’s letter of approval summarizing the project and setting conditions the state must satisfy before implementation; and (3) further planning documentation issued by both the states and the federal government, covering certain aspects of implementation.2 Because the requests, approvals, and the planning documentation follow the same pattern, and the substance is generally similar, the Court will lay out the timeline and the details of all the projects together, rather individually. 1. The federal government’s call to action On February 13, 2025, Brooke Rollins was sworn into office as the Secretary of Agriculture, and on the same day, she sent a letter to all state, tribal, territory, and local government partners of the USDA. A.R. 193–94; Brooke L. Rollins Sworn in as 33rd U.S. Secretary of Agriculture, U.S. Dep’t of Agric. (Feb. 13, 2025), https://perma.cc/W9HW-GMGP. The letter stated: 2 The record also includes a category of documents that defendants labelled as “Technical Assistance to the States.” See A.R. 498–787. It contains communications and drafts shared between the states and the USDA to prepare the pilot project requests and then implement the projects. 9  I am inviting every State, territory, and tribal leader in the nation to participate in our “Laboratories of Innovation” initiative to serve as policy incubators and bring greater efficiency to government programs. We encourage you propose bold ideas to address challenges that have long plagued our nation, particularly rural communities. . . . This includes bold plans to combat avian flu and make food prices more affordable; new initiatives to bring more jobs and economic opportunities to rural communities and ensure that we equip and empower the next generation of American farmers; create partnerships to improve infrastructure and internet connectivity in remote areas; and much-needed reforms to nutrition assistance programs to promote the dignity of work and healthy eating habits to ensure our citizens live longer, more abundant lives. A.R. 193–94. The USDA then sent the states a template for a “SNAP Healthy Choice/Food Restriction State Demonstration Request.” See, e.g., A.R. 3, 78. The introduction explained that “this template intends to guide and assist States in submitting a SNAP Food Restriction Demonstration Project Request.” A.R. 3. It stated that the federal agency had authority under section 2026(b) of the Food and Nutrition Act “to waive statutory requirements of the Act to conduct pilot projects,” subject to certain restrictions. A.R. 3. And it asserted that “SNAP Food Restriction demonstration projects are intended to test innovative ideas that,” among other things, “strengthen State strategies to encourage healthy choices, healthy outcomes, and healthy families.” A.R. 3. It directed the states to “follow the guided prompts and questions and offer any additional detail . . . under each section to ensure a complete understanding of the State’s proposed project.” A.R. 3. 2. The states’ pilot project requests Between April 1, 2025 and August 12, 2025, Iowa, Nebraska, West Virginia, Colorado, and Tennessee submitted requests to the USDA to conduct pilot projects, and each request followed the same structure. 10  First, each state sought to waive the federal definition of “food,” and replace it with a definition that excluded specific items. A.R. 4–5, 26, 50, 63, 79. Colorado asked to modify the definition to exclude “soft drinks,” defined as “nonalcoholic beverages that contain natural or artificial sweeteners,” but not “beverages that contain milk or milk products, soy, rice, or similar milk substitutes, or greater than fifty percent of vegetable or fruit juice by volume.” A.R. 5. Nebraska similarly sought to exclude “Soda or ‘Soft Drinks’” and “Energy drink.” A.R. 50. It defined “Soda or ‘Soft Drinks’” as “any carbonated non-alcoholic beverage that contains water, a sweetening agent (including but not limited to sugar, high-fructose corn syrup, or artificial sweeteners), flavoring, and carbon dioxide gas to create carbonation.” A.R. 50. And it defined “Energy drink” as: [C]arbonated or non-carbonated beverages containing a stimulant such as fortified caffeine, guarana, glucuronolactone, or taurine. They may also include herbal extracts such as ginseng, mineral salts and vitamins, or high doses of organic acids, amino acids, inositol, sugars, or other similar compounds in addition to sweeteners. Juices or natural fruit pulp or concentrates may also be added. Energy drinks are specifically formulated to enhance energy, alertness, or physical performance. A.R. 50. West Virginia requested permission to modify the federal definition to exclude “the purchase of soda,” defined as: [A]ny carbonated non-alcoholic beverage that contains water, a sweetening agent (including but not limited to sugar, high-fructose corn syrup, or artificial sweeteners), flavoring, and carbon dioxide gas to create carbonation. This term includes beverages with added caffeine or other ingredients but does not include carbonated water without sweeteners or flavoring. The following drink options are not included in this waiver and will remain available for purchase with SNAP: milk and milk products, fruit and vegetable juice, or water and water products. A.R. 79–80. Tennessee’s request sought to exclude any: 11  (a) Processed foods that list sugar, cane sugar, corn syrup, or high fructose corn syrup as the first ingredient, excluding granulated sugar, raw sugar, and other single-ingredient sugars used for cooking and baking. (b) Beverages that list carbonated water and sugar, cane sugar, corn syrup, and high fructose corn syrup as the first two ingredients. Beverages that list aspartame or other low- or non- caloric sweeteners as the first two ingredients remain eligible for purchase. A.R. 63. Iowa sought to replace the federal definition with “all nontaxable food items as defined by the Iowa Department of Revenue,” which would exclude an array of items that it noted in a chart: Food Items Beverages Seeds for food producing plants and food Carbonated and noncarbonated soft drinks, producing plants. including but not limited to colas, ginger ale, near-beer, root beer, lemonade, orangeade Candy, candy-coated items, and candy All other drinks or punches with natural fruit products, including gum, candy primarily or vegetable juice which contain 50 percent or intended for decorating baked goods, and hard less by volume natural fruit or vegetable juice; or soft candies including jelly beans, taffy, a typical example is Hi-C licorice, and mints and breath mints Dried fruit leathers or other similar products Beverage mixes and ingredients intended to be prepared with natural or artificial sweeteners made into taxable beverages; liquid or frozen, concentrated or non-concentrated, dehydrated, powdered, granulated, sweetened or unsweetened, seasoned or unseasoned Sweetened baking chocolate in bars, pieces, or Concentrates intended to be made into chips beverages which contain 50% or less by volume natural fruit or vegetable juice Fruits, nuts, or other ingredients in Sweetened naturally or artificially sweetened combination with sugar, chocolate, honey, or water other natural or artificial sweeteners in the form of bars, drops, or pieces Caramel wraps, caramel or other candy-coated apples or other fruit; sweetened coconut, 12 marshmallows; Granola bars, unless they contain flour Mixes of candy pieces, dried fruits, nuts, and similar items when candy is more than an incidental ingredient in the product Ready-to-eat caramel corn, kettle corn, and other candy-coated popcorn A.R. 26–27. Each request announced that the project would cover the entire SNAP population of the state, including every recipient and every participating retailer. A.R. 5, 28, 52, 63–64, 81. As West Virginia put it: As of March 2025, West Virginia had a statewide SNAP caseload of 146,488 households and 273,981 individual recipients. 100% of WV’s SNAP caseload will be affected by this waiver. The waiver will span the entire population as well as including both metropolitan and rural areas for all ages. . . . This waiver will impact all SNAP retailers (2,118) in West Virginia. All retailers must comply within 12 months of the waiver implementation date, or they will not be eligible to be SNAP retailers. A.R. 81–82; see also A.R. 28 (explaining that Iowa’s project would “apply to the entire Iowa SNAP population”). None of the project requests provided any means to opt out of the restrictions, for medical or any other reasons. Each request also included the state’s justification for the project. Nebraska stated that its project would “improve the health of low-income SNAP recipients and increase responsible spending of federal SNAP dollars.” A.R. 52. The state made it clear that the program was specifically directed towards reducing obesity and related medical conditions: [D]ata shows Nebraska, like many others, is experiencing a health epidemic further induced by diet-related chronic disease. Numerous studies equate consumption of unhealthy food and drink, including soft drinks, sweetened beverages, candy, and other junk food, to instances of disease, including obesity, diabetes, high blood pressure, heart disease, and even some cancers. Notably, the diet quality of SNAP families has 13  worsened over the past decade regardless of incentive programs and nutrition education. . . . Multiple studies have shown that SNAP participation is associated with increased obesity risk. While SNAP was initially aimed at alleviating food shortfalls, many low-income individuals today are overeating the wrong foods. Studies have shown that low- income adults and children have higher obesity rates than other Americans. A recent review by Jerold Mande and Grace Flaherty found that children participating in SNAP were more likely to have elevated disease risk and consume more sugar-sweetened beverages, more high-fat dairy, and more processed meats than nonparticipants. . . . Implementing this waiver may assist Nebraskans in consuming healthier options and reduce chronic disease and the costs surrounding their medical care, which is a necessary component in the move to make Nebraska healthy again. A.R. 51–52. West Virginia similarly posited that soda was “detrimental to the health of its SNAP population and is antithetical to the purpose of the SNAP program,” and emphasized its desire to “improve the health of low-income SNAP recipients and increase responsible spending of federal SNAP dollars.” A.R. 79. West Virginia, like other states, is experiencing a health epidemic of obesity and other chronic diseases such as type 2 diabetes and heart disease resulting from consumption of foods with high sugar content. One of the most commonly purchased items in this category includes sugar sweetened beverages (soda). Numerous studies have shown the detrimental impact of consumption of items with high sugar content, and it has been shown that more than half of sugar consumption is from sugar sweetened beverages (soda). *** West Virginia recently became the first state in the United States to create a state law to ban harmful food additive dyes, including blue #1, blue #2, red #3, red #40 and yellow #5 . . . . The request to exclude soda will assist West Virginia in aligning our SNAP program goals with the overall health goals of our state. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as of 2023, WV was one of only three states to have an obesity prevalence of 40% or greater (41.2%). Also, according to recent reports, approximately 73.9% of all West Virginians are either overweight or obese. These statistics highlight significant public health challenges in the Mountain State, with obesity being linked to various health issues. *** 14  In federal fiscal year 2024, West Virginia Medicaid (excluding CHIP) paid $157,271,330.13 in pharmacy claims for medications related to diabetes and weight management. This substantial expenditure underscores the financial burden that obesity-related chronic illnesses impose on public healthcare programs. Allowing SNAP benefits to be used for the purchase of nutritionally void, sugar-sweetened beverages may be contributing to these preventable health conditions and their associated costs. Implementing policies that promote healthier food choices within SNAP – such as restricting the purchase of soda pop – has the potential to reduce the prevalence of diet-related disease and, in tum, generate long-term savings for Medicaid and other taxpayer-funded healthcare programs. A.R. 80–81. Tennessee’s stated goal was “to promote healthier eating habits among participants, supporting improved health outcomes and reducing diet-related conditions by encouraging the use of SNAP benefits for more nutritious food options.” A.R. 63. Colorado’s project was designed to serve SNAP’s goal of “providing food assistance to raise levels of nutrition among low-income individuals,” A.R. 5, and it would “ensure[] that SNAP dollars are not being spent on sweetened beverages with no or negative nutritional value.” A.R. 9. And “Iowa wishe[d] to refocus the SNAP program on its designed intent, ‘to promote the general welfare and safeguard the health and wellbeing’ by encourage SNAP participants to purchase healthier food items.” A.R. 28. Then, to different extents, the requests laid out plans to implement the pilot projects. West Virginia explained that it would “begin a comprehensive communications rollout two months prior to the implementation date,” which would “be targeted specifically to SNAP households, while informing the general public and stakeholder groups in food advocacy.” A.R. 85. The state would also “work to educate existing retailers about which items may be purchased with SNAP,” and it would require retailers “to implement point-of-sale (POS) system changes that support real-time transaction adjudication,” meaning that “[t]ransactions involving 15 restricted items will be automatically declined at the point of sale.” A.R. 82–83. The plans called for the West Virginia Office of Inspector General to work with USDA to construct “an appropriate and operable plan to ensure WV SNAP retailers do not allow the purchase of soda using SNAP benefits.” A.R. 84. Nebraska offered that its “outreach efforts [would] be completed through multiple avenues including text messages, collaboration with community partners, current nutrition education efforts, and mailings, recipes and nutrition information made available on websites and in-person classes and programs focused on healthy nutritious food choices.” A.R. 52. The state would also work with the USDA to “ensure retailer compliance is maintained.” A.R. 52. Colorado would finalize a plan to communicate the project to all stakeholders, and “work with retailers of all sizes to develop strategies based on . . . size and technology.” A.R. 5–6. Its compliance would be accomplished through an “annual Attestation by all Colorado retailers of their compliance with the ‘soft drink’ restrictions.” A.R. 7. Tennessee planned to communicate the requirements of the project through: ▪ Customer communication materials with clear messaging to support understanding of the changes; ▪ Training materials for [state agency] and partner staff who interact with SNAP customers, to ensure staff are prepared to explain the changes and answer questions accurately and confidently; ▪ Retailer-facing resources available through a dedicated webpage and electronic updates, such as signage templates, informational posters, and FAQs to support communication at the point of sale; ▪ Dedicated webpage to support customers throughout the demonstration. A.R. 65. The state would create “an FAQ, standardized messaging, signage templates, talking points for retailer staff, and other information that supports clear, uniform communication.” 16 A.R. 64. As for compliance, Tennessee planned to “ask retailers to complete an attestation form affirming compliance” with the project. A.R. 65. Finally, each request laid out the state’s plan to evaluate the outcome of the pilot projects. Iowa explained that it would use a “mixed-methods approach . . . to understand the programmatic impacts, participant shopping patterns, change in health behaviors, and changes in youth health outcomes.” A.R. 28. The “question [it] would seek to answer” would be: “[a]re there differences in participants healthy eating behaviors who receive nutrition education in addition to SNAP benefits vs those who receive no education?” A.R. 29. And it would answer that question by: Conduct[ing] an impact study using a stratified sampling method to survey and analyze participant shopping and eating patterns at pre, mid, and post checkpoints. The sample size would include participants in both urban and rural areas of Iowa. Pre would mean surveying before this demonstration goes into effect, mid would mean surveying halfway through this demonstration period, and post would be surveying at the conclusion of the demonstration period. The purpose of this study would be to assess how participants health is impacted by this demonstration and if additional nutritional supports and education for participants leads to higher health behavior change efficacy. A.R. 28–29. Nebraska’s “[p]reliminary plans” included “a pulse study for all SNAP participants on a quarterly basis to evaluate their spending habits prior to the waiver implementation and in each quarter following implementation.” A.R. 53. In addition, the state planned to “review SNAP purchases and determine the reduction in purchases of soda and energy drinks,” and to “continue to review reports and data regarding obesity rates for both adults and children in Nebraska.” A.R. 53. West Virgina would: 17  [I]ncorporate an analysis of Medicaid claims data to assess changes in obesity-related health outcomes over the course of the demonstration period. Specifically, the state will monitor trends in the diagnosis and treatment of conditions closely associated with high consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages, including Type 2 diabetes, hypertension, obesity, and related cardiovascular diseases. By analyzing claims data before and after implementation of the waiver, the state aims to identify any correlation between reduced soda consumption - encouraged through the restriction - and positive shifts in Medicaid utilization patterns. The evaluation will involve longitudinal analysis of claims data across affected SNAP households, using comparison groups to account for confounding variables. West Virginia will also explore stratified