The Trump administration violated federal rules when it rolled back heavily debated nutrition standards for school meals programs in 2018, a Monday.
The U.S. District Court in Maryland vacated the rule changes and sided with plaintiffs, children鈥檚 health advocacy groups that had argued the U.S. Department of Agriculture violated the Administrative Procedures Act, which agencies must follow in changing federal regulations.
That鈥檚 because the final rule the USDA issued鈥攚hich allowed higher sodium levels in school meals and eliminated a requirement for more whole-grain items鈥攄iffered too significantly from the version it put out for public comment. That earlier draft would have delayed those regulations and allowed some exemptions, rather than eliminating the standards altogether.
鈥淎lthough an agency is certainly permitted to change a rule in response to comments, USDA鈥檚 changes are not 鈥榠n character with the original scheme鈥� of the [rule put out for public comment] because there is a fundamental difference between delaying compliance standards鈥攚hich indicates that school meals will still eventually meet those standards鈥攁nd eliminating those standards altogether,鈥� District Judge George Hazel鈥檚 opinion said.
Attorneys for the USDA argued the agency made changes to the final rule in response to public comments, an argument the court rejected.
The case was brought by Center for Science in the Public Interest and Healthy School Food Maryland.
鈥淭he Trump administration鈥檚 attempt to gut the whole-grain and sodium standards would have undone years of hard work and advocacy on the part of organizations like ours,鈥� Fania Yangarber, executive director of Healthy School Food Maryland, said in a statement after the ruling. 鈥淣ow, more than ever, our kids deserve high nutrition standards in their school meals. In the midst of a pandemic and economic crisis, this is a win for children and families across America鈥攑articularly those that rely on free and reduced-cost meals.鈥�
The court rejected some of the groups鈥� other arguments, including an assertion that the USDA rule change differed too greatly from the underlying federal law, the Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act, which had been championed by former first lady Michelle Obama. The law is ambiguous, Hazel wrote, and federal courts defer to agencies鈥� interpretations on such issues.
The nutrition regulations have been the subject of debate in Congress for years. Health advocacy groups argue they are necessary to combat concerns like childhood obesity. But industry groups and school nutrition directors have argued that it鈥檚 difficult to comply with the mandates.
Photo: 69传媒 pick up their lunch at Barre Town Elementary School in Barre Town, Vt. --Toby Talbot/AP-File