Could the federal government ban people from drinking coffee?
<p>Which amendment does this statement violate?</p>
<p>The federal government refuses to allow anyone to drink coffee.</p>

<p>None. The federal government is allowed to prohibit coffee drinking under its power to regulate interstate commerce. Prohibition would not have required a constitutional amendment under modern constitutional jurisprudence either. By analogy, this would be no different (constitutionally) than a law prohibiting putting lithium in sodas (something that used to be done in <em>7 Up</em>) or putting cocaine in sodas (something that used to be done in <em>Coca-Cola</em>).</p>
<p>Conceivably, the law might have to allow a religious exemption in certain circumstances under the 1st Amendment's free exercise clause, but while many faiths prohibit drinking coffee (most notably, offshoots of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints), none of which I am aware require it as a matter of religious doctrine sincerely espoused.</p>

<p>This would almost certainly be within Congress's powers under the <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/commerce_clause" rel="noreferrer">Commerce Clause</a>, which has been interpreted quite broadly to encompass virtually anything someone could imagine <em>possibly</em> affecting interstate commerce, even indirectly.</p>
<p>There are two particularly on-point Supreme Court cases: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich" rel="noreferrer"><em>Gonzales v. Raich</em></a> in 2005 and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn" rel="noreferrer"><em>Wickard v. Filburn</em></a> in 1942.  <em>Gonzales v. Raich</em> held that Congress could prohibit the use of cannabis within a state (even if it never crossed state lines), because it could affect interstate demand for cannabis.  It was based in part on <em>Wickard v. Filburn</em>, which held that Congress could prohibit a farmer from growing wheat in excess of specified quotas (even if he never sold that wheat and only used it to feed his own animals), because he would otherwise have to purchase feed, which affects the interstate market for that.</p>
<p>To quote the court in <em>Gonzales</em>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>In both cases, the regulation is squarely within Congress’ commerce power because production of the commodity meant for home consumption, be it wheat or marijuana, has a substantial effect on supply and demand in the national market for that commodity.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The only remaining obstacle would be that the government would have to articulate some rational basis for this law.  The <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/rational_basis_test" rel="noreferrer">rational basis test</a> is the test for the constitutionality of a law in which no fundamental rights or equal-protection violations are at issue.  Since banning coffee consumption (probably) doesn't implicate any fundamental rights or discriminate against any protected class of people, it would apply here. It requires 1) that the law advance a legitimate state interest, and 2) that there be a rational connection between that goal and the means by which the law attempts to advance it.</p>
<p>That's not a difficult bar to meet: one possible reason would be that it contains caffeine, an addictive drug that has negative health implications when consumed in excess.  Protecting the health of the public would be a legitimate state interest, and restricting the consumption of a harmful substance would advance it.</p>

united-states constitutional-law legal-history