Source: http://www.annalsofhealthlaw.com/annalsofhealthlaw/vol_23_issue_2?pg=45
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 10:40:20+00:00

Document:
whether a product ban is implemented. All product bans, for instance, must conform to due process. The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments prohibit government from depriving people of life, liberty, or property without due process of law (procedural due process) and guarantee that they will not encroach on the rights of citizens (substantive due process). Procedural due process shields legal processes (e.g., the right to notice, the right to stand trial) when government action deprives a person of life, liberty, or property. Thus government may violate procedural due process by failing to provide affected parties with notice or the opportunity for a hearing before banning a product. Substantive due process, in contrast, focuses on whether there is sufficient justification for governmental decisions to dispossess an individual of his or her rights. 101 As a result, government must ground public health-driven product bans in scientific evidence that sustains negative health outcomes.
101. Erwin Chemerinsky, The Supreme Court and the Fourteenth Amendment: The Unfulfilled Promise, 25 LOY. L. A. L. REV. 1143, 1149 (1992).
102. Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 332 (1976); see Coleman v. Mesa, 284 P.3d 863, 870 (Ariz. 2012). Additionally, product bans that infringe on fundamental rights (e.g., owning a firearm) may violate substantive due process protection. See generally McDonald v. Chi., 130 S. Ct. 3020 (2010). States that ban products without infringing on “fundamental rights,” however, may succeed against due process claims. See Williams v. Attorney Gen. of Ala., 378 F. 3d 1232, 1233 (11th Cir. 2004) (upholding Alabama ban on the commercial distribution of “any device designed or marketed as useful primarily for the stimulation of human genital organs for anything of pecuniary value.” (internal citations omitted)). ALA. CODE § 13A–12–200.2(a)( 2) (West, WestlawNext through Act 2014-413 of the 2014 Regular Session).
103. See N.Y. Statewide Coal. of Hispanic Chambers of Commerce v. N.Y. C. Dep’t of Health & Mental Hygiene, 970 N. Y.S.2d 200, 208-09 (2013).
104. Michael M. Grynbaum, Judge Blocks New York City’s Limits on Big Sugary Drinks, N.Y. TIMES, Mar. 11, 2013, http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/12/nyregion/judge- invalidates-bloombergs-soda-ban.html?_r=0. A copy of the N.Y. State Supreme Court (Manhattan) order is available online at: http://www.wnyc.org/media/resources/2013 /Mar/11/SugaryDrinks.pdf; see also N.Y. Statewide Coal. of Hispanic Chambers of Commerce v. N.Y. C. Dep’t of Health & Mental Hygiene, No. 653584/12, 2013 WL 1343607, at * 20 (N. Y. App. Div. 2013).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 13
 v. 
 v.