Among the ironies connected to New York's attempt to ban large cups of soda is the fact that the last time I was in the city, before the advent of 7-11 to its precincts, the one thing I really craved was a really large cup of Dr Pepper.  When I visit New York, on business or for pleasure, I typically walk miles and miles, and on a hot day an icy cold cup of soda (I prefer the Diet) is what I need to refresh myself.  I think I found one place that had it, but then again Dr Pepper is less common in the East.

A lot has been written about this ban both before and after a New York Supreme Court judge struck it down on Monday.  Some of it has been fairly misleading and some of it has been relatively accurate.  The case has nothing to do with equal protection under the U.S. Constitution, or indeed the U.S. Constitution at all.  Rather, it was mainly decided based on an interpretation of a document that is, in its origins, older than the Constitution:  the New York City Charter, a document that began in the reign of James II, the man for whom the city and state were named.  Ultimately, the question was not so much the wisdom of the ban, but whether the Board of Health, a body appointed entirely by the Mayor without even City Council ratification, had the power to institute it, or whether that power was held by the City Council or the New York State Legislature, each of which had failed to pass similar legislation.  Unless you are seriously concerned about the separation of powers doctrine under New York law (city or state), the vast majority of the case is of little interest and creates no precedent for what other jurisdictions may or may not do.

Much attention has been given to the judge's alternative ruling that the ban was "arbitrary and capricious" because it covered only some establishments and because it exempted certain drinks.  The former of these is really a question of the authority of the Board of Health, which by a "memorandum of understanding" has ceded jurisdiction over grocery stores and convenience stores, as opposed to restaurants, to the state authorities.  The court hints, however, that one problem with the ban is that that Board of Health did not seek, before imposing it, to coordinate with the state, which the MOU apparently required. 

The latter can certainly be criticized.  If you can get unlimited refills of a 16 ounce cup, have you accomplished anything?  Some would argue that you have.  Alcoholic beverages and milk-based beverages were exempt, which raises other issues.  An article on the Bloomberg website, of all things, suggests that the result of the judge's action might be a broader ban.  The director of the World Health Organization's Orwellian-sounding "Center on Public Health Law and Human Rights" argues that the ban was "legal and right."  Mayor Bloomberg, not surprisingly, vows to succeed on appeal.

More interesting is the number of different ways in which New York restaurants had chosen to comply with the ban, and the cost of being required to be in a position to comply only to have the ban struck down just before it went into effect.  16 oz. cups were at a premium in the city before the ban was struck down; as the case goes through appeal, there will be more uncertainty about what those subject to the former ban may do, and if the mayor wins on appeal, how quickly they would have to comply with a reintroduced ban. While the organizations that challenged the law clearly had the right to do so, for many New York restaurant owners the real concern is certainty.  They'd rather know what their duties are far in advance of having to implement them because they can't change their practices on a dime.  This appeal doesn't do them any favors at all.