A panel called Does Size Matter? focused on whether the New York City Board of Health should have the right to regulate the soda ban, if citizen’s liberty is being infringed, among other issues involving the ban.

The discussion at Vanderbilt Hall on Nov. 12 included senior editor of Reason Magazine Jacob Sullum; Walter Olson, senior fellow at the Cato Institute’s Center for Constitutional Studies; professor Rick Hills from the NYU School of Law; and law school professor Michael Herz, who served as the moderator.

Sullum said the ban was an inappropriate effort by the government to interfere with individual consumption choices.

“Bloomberg’s big-beverage ban sets a precedent for government meddling in personal matters where it has no business intervening,” Sullum said. “By trying to stop people from drinking what he deems to be too much soda, Bloomberg asserts his authority to override consumption decisions of which he disapproves.”

Olson cited Boreali v. Axelrod, a case about the New York state Department of Health’s right to regulate smoking in public places.

“If the tests for arbitrary and capricious says, ‘Oh, you should have gone farther in order to be consistent and therefore we are going to strike you down [as such]’ … then I would agree [with Hills] completely,” Olson said, referring to the four-pronged test established by the appellate court’s decision in Boreali. “I simply can’t accept professor Hills’ analysis.”

Hills, who disagreed with the state appellate court’s upholding the ban, argued in favor of local government.

“If you’re going to be uneasy about paternalism, [then] strike down the trans-fat rule,” Hills said. “Now they won’t do that because that would be politically unpopular. And so what they’re doing is picking and choosing under a mushy test that has nothing to do with administrative law and has everything to do with political ideology.”

The NYU Federalist Society, a group of conservative and libertarian students who are interested in the current state of legal issues, organized the discussion to draw attention to broader legal themes raised by the ban.

“Our society believes that the state exists to preserve individual freedom and that separation of powers is central to this preservation,” said Vince Eisinger, a Federalist Society board member and third-year law student.

Food Law, a student organization that exposes students to issues involving food law and food policy, co-hosted the event.

“The Bloomberg portion cap is a perfect example of the intersection of food and law,” said Julia McCartney, the vice president of Food Law and a second-year law student.

McCartney said the panel clarified the legal underpinnings of the soda ban.

“I think the complexity of New York City law is difficult of explain,” McCartney said. “The speakers did a good job at breaking down the different issues.”

A version of this article appeared in the Wednesday, Nov. 13 print edition. Adelina Zhang is a contributing writer. Email her at [email protected].