Appeals Court Rules Nanny Bloomberg’s Big Sugary Drink Ban Unconstitutional

Could this be the first domino in rolling back Nanny State laws and regulations thanks to judicial precedent, or is that a bit of wishful thinking?

(Reuters) New York City’s plan to ban large sugary drinks from restaurants and other eateries was an illegal overreach of executive power, a state appeals court ruled on Tuesday, upholding a lower court decision in March that struck down the law.

The law, which would have prohibited those businesses from selling sodas and other sugary beverages larger than 16 ounces, “violated the state principle of separation of powers,” the First Department of the state Supreme Court’s Appellate Division said in a unanimous decision.

Well, I was hoping more for a “what the hell were you thinking, trying to control the lives of citizens in such a manner!”, but, this is good enough. Not that I plan on rushing into NYC to buy a big sugary drink anytime soon. Or, really, ever. But, it’s nice that the choice is mine, not some government hack acting as a parent or caregiver to the citizens. The ruling is mostly about something like the ban having to go through the legislative process, not the “Mayor gets a burr under his bumm and decides he’ll do something” process.

Mary Katherine Hamm notes

In other words, when the elected legislature is “unwilling to act” in a way an executive or administrative board wishes it would, it’s not all right to “take whatever administrative steps that I can in order to do right by the American people.”

Hmm, that debate sounds familiar….

Obviously, Bloomberg is a bit pissy over this

Since New York City’s ground-breaking limit on the portion size of sugary beverages was prevented from going into effect on March 12th, more than 2,000 New Yorkers have died from the effects of diabetes. Also during that time, the American Medical Association determined that obesity is a disease and the New England Journal of Medicine released a study showing the deadly, and irreversible, health impacts of obesity and Type 2 diabetes – both of which are disproportionately linked to sugary drink consumption. Today’s decision is a temporary setback, and we plan to appeal this decision as we continue the fight against the obesity epidemic.”

Perhaps Mike should be more concerned with crime, pollution, alcoholism, and drugs, but, Big Gulps are obviously more dangerous in his mind.

Neither the NYC city council nor NY State General Assembly was able to pass any sort of law regarding the big sugary drinks, so expect Mike to whine about this for a while. And remember that Obama does the same thing.

Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

5 Responses to “Appeals Court Rules Nanny Bloomberg’s Big Sugary Drink Ban Unconstitutional”

  1. john says:

    Diabetes is a huge problem in the poorer sections of New York City. Diabetes causes about 200 billion in lost wages and healthcare costs. Teach YOU are paying for that healthcare.

  2. Yes, it is a problem. So, people can just purchase 2 sixteen ounces instead. Furthermore, it is not the role of government to do this, especially not by executive decree.

    What if the mayor in your town decreed that your favorite food should be banned, because it can be “bad” for you? Would you quietly aquiese?

  3. Corrupted_Gumballs says:

    Is there really a link between large sugary drinks and diabetes?

    Isn’t it more of the total caloric intake and the genetic disposition to diabetes??

    Yes, everyone pays healthcare costs. That’s the deal when you sign up. Everyone pays for breast-enlargements and sex-change operations too. What’s your point?

    Are you suggesting that we should not pay, as part of our insurance coverage, for birth, heart attacks, operations, or other optional procedures?

    john, would you be ok with the federal govt telling you the exact menu and types of food that you were allowed to eat, because that was the healthiest eating based on accounting?

  4. gitarcarver says:


    You should know by now that john and his ilk only want to control the lives others.

  5. Gail Combs says:

    This is the nose of the camel under the door flap.
    This is where it is headed:

    The EU’s Fast-Approaching Food Tyranny…EU Undertakes To “Radically Transform” People’s Dietary Habits!

    …Food consumption patterns in Europe are currently unsustainable: European food consumption is responsible for a large part of the EU’s greenhouse gas emissions. It is accepted that there needs to be a reduction in global greenhouse gas emission which are contributing to climate change. […] LiveWell for LIFE is a pioneering project which aims to contribute towards the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from the EU food supply chain, and demonstrate what sustainable diets could look like for different European countries.”

    It is another step to world wide slavery.

Pirate's Cove