Soda Ban

State Court Agrees: Drink Up New Yorkers!


Big Gulps for everybody!

Paternalistic Nanny Michael Bloomberg was handed another defeat today, as a state court agreed that his attempt to ban sugary drinks over a certain size was illegal. Via Reuters:

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg's controversial plan to keep large sugary drinks out of restaurants and other eateries was rejected by a state appeals court on Tuesday, which said he had overstepped his authority in trying to impose the ban.

The law, which would have prohibited those businesses from selling sodas and other sugary beverages larger than 16 ounces (473 ml), "violated the state principle of separation of powers," the First Department of the state Supreme Court's Appellate Division said.

The decision, upholding a lower court ruling in March that struck down the law, dealt a blow to Bloomberg's attempt to advance the pioneering regulation as a way to combat obesity. Beverage makers and business groups, however, challenged it in court, arguing that the mayoral-appointed health board had gone too far when it approved the law.

It's important to note that this doesn't mean New York City cannot implement a ban like Bloomberg wants. It just means that he can't bypass the legislative process to do so.

Follow this story and more at Reason 24/7.

Spice up your blog or Website with Reason 24/7 news and Reason articles. You can get the widgets here. If you have a story that would be of interest to Reason's readers please let us know by emailing the 24/7 crew at, or tweet us stories at @reason247.

NEXT: USDA Shelled Out Millions to Dead Farmers

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. So the terrorists have finally won.

  2. Awwww, poor Mikey. Now his shorty complex is going to flare up again.

    I look forward to his next defeat, when he spends his entire forture on a gun control crusade and fails miserably.

    1. If Bloomberg is tall enough to step over the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution to continue effectively prohibiting guns in the Big Apple, what is stopping this ban? Can we get a judge to maybe look at some other bans NYC’s got going on?

      1. Yeah, I was wondering if this ruling could somehow be applied to smoking bans, but I don’t know if those were passed via the legislature.

        1. Are city councils considered ‘legislatures’?

          1. It wasn’t the city council, it was a health committee whose members are entirely appointed by the mayor, IIRC. That’s why the courts tossed it. The city council actually volunteered to pass it for him, but he thumbed his nose at them.

            1. Ah. So my question still stands, had the city council passed it, it would pass muster with the courts?

              1. Apparently so. At least, the court only addressed how it was passed, not whether it was viable if it had been passed legitimately.

      2. None of NYC’s gun laws were created by Bloomberg’s fiat, that’s the difference. The court didn’t say “You absolutely cannot ban big sodas, because of human rights”, it said, “Nice try, but you can’t make new laws through administrative procedures.”

  3. Bloomberg should have reminded the judges before they retired to make their ruling that he commands the seventh-largest army in the world, and that Albany isn’t that far away from NYC.

    1. The Judges remember that the 4th largest army in the world was mopped up in about 48 hours. So the 7th largest will be swept away in about a quarter hour.

  4. Bloomberg’s attempt to advance the pioneering regulation as a way to combat obesity

    You know, that’s a real pukeworthy way to frame the issue in a supposedly unbiased news report.

    1. There’s nothing unbiased about news reports, not even stuff from this site.

  5. If only there were some way to test for excessive blood sugar levels.

    1. Don’t fret, now. We’re getting there. Pretty soon, every citizen, will be required to wear the proper monitoring devices, which will report directly to HHS. It’s for the children.

    2. Oh there is, won’t be long before *everyone* is required to submit thrice daily blood sugar level readings to the government from their home blood glucose testing kit.

      Better hope the government contract is with one of the less painful models.

      1. Oh there is, won’t be long before *everyone* is required to submit thrice daily blood sugar level readings to the government from their home blood glucose testing kit.

        The Japanese are so on it.

  6. Shackford, I’ve been seeing your article on Stoli linked up in other places, namely IGF and Towleroad.

    1. Towleroad

      And what do the towelheads have to say about this one? Does it make them hate Rand Paul and the rest of us crazed free radicals, a little more?

      1. Always. They hate us for our freedoms dontchaknow.

        1. Finally! Someone who really does hate us for our freedoms! It’s about time.

          1. I think Bloomberg qualifies as hating us for our freedoms.

    2. I was called “needlessly condescending”!

      1. Ooh, I hadn’t even seen the Ari Waldman article. Waldman doesn’t seem to say you’re wrong, he’s just annoyed that you don’t propose something that sates his DO SOMETHING-itis to put in Stoli’s place.

        I would make “needlessly condescending” my personal blurb in the dust jacket of my book; if you aren’t writing a book you should start now to take advantage of this.

        “Needlessly condescending”
        –Ari Waldman,

        Kylor Geoffrey was a bit more neutral.

  7. “violated the state principle of separation of powers,”

    The problem, as usual, is that courts will not, ever, rule on any issue deeper than they absolutely have to. Here the court took the easy ruling (violates separation of powers) which while true doesn’t say anything about whether or not a municipality truly has the authority to pull shit like this.

    Right now all Bloomberg has to do is convince the city council to enact this law and the whole thing goes back to court again (maybe, if anyone can afford to fight the law *again*).

  8. The stupid is on this law. I don’t know (and have no intention of finding out) how it works in NYC, but down here in Texas the restaurant:
    a. Fills a 32 oz. cup with all the ice it will hold
    b. Adds beverage

    So you probably get more actual “sugary drink” in a 16 oz. bottle.

    Of course that might not be true for Sonic’s “Route 44” 44 oz. cup.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.