IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/osf/lawarc/83s4k_v1.html

The Coca-Cola Capitation Conundrum: The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania Leaves Philadelphians Thirsty for Soda and Certainty in Williams v. City of Philadelphia

Author

Listed:
  • Morgan, John T. Jr.

Abstract

This Note examines the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania’s decision in Williams v. City of Philadelphia and argues that, while the court upheld Philadelphia’s sugary beverage tax under the Sterling Act, it failed to clarify the scope of municipal taxing authority in Pennsylvania. By adopting a legal-incidence analysis, the court preserved broad local taxing power but left unresolved longstanding uncertainty in Pennsylvania’s tax preemption doctrine. The Note concludes that legislative action is necessary to define the limits of municipal taxation and provide greater predictability for future preemption challenges. [This abstract was written by Microsoft Copilot, a generative artificial intelligence.]

Suggested Citation

  • Morgan, John T. Jr., 2026. "The Coca-Cola Capitation Conundrum: The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania Leaves Philadelphians Thirsty for Soda and Certainty in Williams v. City of Philadelphia," LawArchive 83s4k_v1, Center for Open Science.
  • Handle: RePEc:osf:lawarc:83s4k_v1
    DOI: 10.31228/osf.io/83s4k_v1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://osf.io/download/6abab262cbace81325faa25f/
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.31228/osf.io/83s4k_v1?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:osf:lawarc:83s4k_v1. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: OSF (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://lawarchive.info/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.