A judge on Monday invalidated New York City’s plan to ban large sugary drinks from restaurants, movie theaters and other establishments, one day before the new law was to take effect.
State Supreme Court Justice Milton Tingling in Manhattan ruled the new regulation was “arbitrary and capricious” and declared it invalid, after the American Beverage Association and other business groups had sued the city challenging the ban.
The decision was a blow to Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who had touted the ban as a way to address what he has termed an obesity “epidemic.” But beverage manufacturers and business groups had called the law an illegal overreach that would infringe upon consumers’ personal liberty.
A spokesman for Bloomberg’s office was not immediately available for comment.
The ban had prohibited the city’s food-service businesses from selling sugary drinks larger than 16 ounces, though city officials had said they would not begin imposing $200 fines on offending businesses until June.
Bloomberg has made improving the health of New Yorkers part of his legacy. The soda ban had followed similar crackdowns on fat, sugar and salt and a smoking ban that has been replicated around the world.
In anticipation of the soda ban, Bloomberg on Monday released new data tying sugary drinks to the city’s fattest neighborhoods. The new city study that showed nine of the neighborhoods with the 10 highest obesity rates were also the highest in sugary drink consumption. At the other end, the three least obese neighborhoods were also the lowest in sugary drink consumption.
Companies like Coca-Cola, PepsiCo and McDonald’s Corp had argued that the ban was inconsistent in its application, since it would still permit grocery and convenience stores to sell the drinks in any size.
(Reuters)
Join the official YWN WhatsApp status
5 Responses
He could get around the problem by having the ban enacted as a law rather than a regulations. Regulations (decrees by the mayor) are banned if they are arbitrary and capricious. A law (enacted by the legislature/council) need only be constitutional.
Maybe this is a sign of good things to come especially with the Metziza Bpeh case which hopefully is next to be overturned.
@#1 good point but i think even as a law it violates laissez-faire and the free market
this is out of the Wall Street Journal “Judge Tingling also suggested that Mr. Bloomberg overstepped his powers by bringing the sugary drink rules before the Board of Health, which is solely appointed by him. The City Council, he wrote, is the legislative body “and it alone has the authority to legislate as the board seeks to do here.”
City health officials, he wrote, aren’t assigned the “sweeping and unbridled authority to define, create, authorize, mandate and enforce” the health code.”
Does this also apply to M’Tzitza Bpeh?
“A law (enacted by the legislature/council) need only be constitutional.”
And that is precisely where the Mayor’s problem lies: this ban must constitutional or it it wide open to challenge.
Boy, is he only too aware of this!