[BitWielder1]

The judge struck down the law because it was poorly written, he did not say "The state has no business regulating things like this!".
It's a step in the right direction but a small one.

[COBOL2Java]

Has Bloomberg already bought the 17 ounce measuring cups his restaurant inspectors were planning to use?

[9YearLurker]

It was struck down because Bloomie’s board that he charged to write the law didn’t have the legislative power to do so.

Of course, any city council in the country could probably write such a law. It’s just a stupid and oppressive thing to do.

[kevkrom]

The judge struck down the law because it was poorly written, he did not say "The state has no business regulating things like this!".

Judges tend to rule on the minimum necessary -- in this case, the fact that the regulation was improperly drafted and implemented is a simpler decision (since it's clear-cut) than going into the merits of the regulation itself.

This allowed the judge to provide the relief requested by the petitioner without setting a more general precedent. Perhaps it sounds a bit cowardly for judges to do this, but I'd much rather see judges under-reach than over-reach as a general rule.