"We hold that the New York City Board of Health, in adopting the 'Sugary Drinks Portion Cap Rule,' exceeded the scope of its regulatory authority."

Says the New York Court of Appeals (New York's highest court). PDF.

By choosing among competing policy goals, without any legislative delegation or guidance, the Board engaged in law-making and thus infringed upon the legislative jurisdiction of the City Council of New York.

ADDED: "Mayor Bill de Blasio, a frequent critic of Mr. Bloomberg but a supporter of the soda proposal, said he was 'extremely disappointed' by the latest decision, saying it was 'irrefutable' that sugary drinks has detrimental effects on health. The mayor said he would review other options for the city to combat obesity, but his team did not immediately specify what steps might be taken."

Of course, the judicial opinion has nothing to do with whether "sugary" drinks — gah, I hate that adjective — are detrimental to health. It's about the structure of governmental power. 

"Sugary" annoys me, by the way, because it is not the right word for what is covered by the regulation, which defined the term to mean "sweetened by the manufacturer or establishment with sugar or another calorie sweetener; . . . has greater than 25 calories per 8 fluid ounces of beverage; . . . [and] does not contain more than 50 percent of milk or milk substitute by volume as an ingredient."

"Sugary" refers to the intensity of the sweetness, and most soda that was covered isn't very sweet. Cola and lemon-lime sodas are only a bit sweet, much less tasting than some juices with no added sugar (like pineapple juice) and coffee drinks made with milk or chocolate milk.