Advertisement

The Potential for Federal Preemption of State and Local Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Taxes

      Federal, state, and local governments each have a role to play in protecting health. President Obama recognized that “state and local governments have frequently protected health, safety, and the environment more aggressively than has the national Government.”

      Obama B. Presidential Memorandum Regarding Preemption. The White House Archive. May 20, 2009. https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/presidential-memorandum-regarding-preemption. Accessed June 1, 2017.

      Yet, the federal government can hinder state and local activity through preemption, which is “when a higher level of government restricts, or even eliminates, a lower level of government’s ability to regulate an issue.”
      National Academies of Medicine
      For the Public’s Health Revitalizing Law and Policy to Meet New Challenges.
      State governments can similarly preempt local law.
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to American Journal of Preventive Medicine
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

      1. Obama B. Presidential Memorandum Regarding Preemption. The White House Archive. May 20, 2009. https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/presidential-memorandum-regarding-preemption. Accessed June 1, 2017.

        • National Academies of Medicine
        For the Public’s Health Revitalizing Law and Policy to Meet New Challenges.
        The National Academies Press, Washington, DC2011
        • Pomeranz J.L.
        • Perschuk M.
        State preemption: a significant and quiet threat to public health in the U.S.
        Am J Public Health. 2017; 107: 900-902https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2017.303756
        • Mozaffarian D.
        Dietary and policy priorities for cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and obesity: a comprehensive review.
        Circulation. 2016; 133: 187-225https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.115.018585
        • Brownell K.D.
        • Farley T.
        • Willett W.C.
        • et al.
        The public health and economic benefits of taxing sugar-sweetened beverages.
        N Engl J Med. 2009; 361: 1599-1605https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMhpr0905723
      2. McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 (1819).
      3. Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905).
      4. Hunter v. Pittsburgh, 207 U.S. 161 (1907).
      5. Aloha Airlines v. Dir. of Taxation, 464 U.S. 7 (1983).
        • Fatale M.T.
        Commonsense: implicit constitutional limitations on congressional preemption of state tax.
        Michigan State Law Rev. 2012; : 41-102
        • Hearings Before the Committee on the Ways and Means Committee House of Representatives
        Eighty-Eighth Congress, First and Second Sessions on H.R. 3920.
        U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington DC1964
        • Medicare Program
        Establishment of the Medicare+Choice Program.
        Fed Reg. 1998; 63: 34968
      6. Congressional Record–House. 1997; 143 (July 29): H16129-H16519
        • Pomeranz J.L.
        Implications of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program tax exemption on sugar-sweetened beverage taxes.
        Am J Public Health. 2015; 105: 2191-2193https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2015.302850
      7. Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942).

      8. Congressional Record. 1959; (August 19): S16303-S16453
      9. Congressional Record. 2003; 149 (November 6): S14160
      10. Congressional Record. 1998; 144 (June 23): H5028
      11. Congressional Record. October 6–7, 1998;144(138):S11572, S11682, S11688.
      12. Tyler Pipe Indus. v. Washington State Dep't of Revenue, 483 U.S. 232 (1987).