A federal court has ruled against an initiative by the Trump administration, the U.S. Department of Agriculture and some supportive states to prohibit the use of federal nutrition assistance money from being spent on candy and sugary drinks.

We can understand the frustrations of taxpayers, at a time when rising costs coupled with the burden of taxation are requiring their own personal sacrifices, at the perception that assistance programs accommodate indulgence or excess — and the perception that a status quo of such accommodation is leading to entitlement and ingratitude.

These frustrations are not dulled or lessened with reflection on a projected 2026 spending deficit of between $1.9 trillion and $2 trillion, or how that deficit adds to the nation’s $39.2 trillion debt.

We take solace in the appearance, based on the Associated Press article in Wednesday’s edition, that the ruling is on a very narrow matter concerning how past laws and U.S. Department of Agriculture regulations define food. As the federal judge who made the ruling, Judge Amy Berman Jackson, acknowledged in the ruling itself, governments “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.”

Beyond the ruling, we have some concerns that enforcement of these types of measures are, fiscally, counter-productive. If the costs of monitoring and implementing this degree of oversight siphons money away from communities assisting the most vulnerable, communities and the federal and state governments should carefully reconsider how they are pursuing these limitations.

We also do not want any illusion that assistance programs alone are driving our deficits — wasteful spending and irresponsible fiscal decisions abound in Washington, and have for decades.

But U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins said, according to the Associated Press, that the administration would “keep fighting” — though it was unclear if that meant an appeal or revisions to the proposal.

We hope, in either case, that the administration finds the path to exercising discretion on behalf of taxpayers on how assistance can be spent, on developing a balanced approach that assists people truly in need with life’s necessities — and is able to fully help those truly in need with necessities by jettisoning wasteful, frivolous expenses.