A New York state Public Health Council adopted a regulation prohibiting smoking in most indoor areas. The court found that the regulation was invalid because the Commission exceeded its authority when it drafted a regulation containing its own assessment of what public policy should be on tobacco smoking. In particular, the court found that the exceptions created by the Commission—such as for bars and small restaurants—were based on economic and social concerns not on public health.
Tobacco companies or front groups may challenge any legislative or regulatory measure that affects their business interests. Unlike public interest litigation, these cases seek to weaken health measures. These cases frequently involve the industry proceeding against the government. For example, a group of restaurant owners challenging a smoke free law as unconstitutional.
The legislative branch, through its tobacco control legislation, may have granted too much authority to the executive branch to implement measures administratively.
A New York state Public Health Council adopted a regulation prohibiting smoking in most indoor areas. The court found that the regulation was invalid because the Commission exceeded its authority when it drafted a regulation containing its own assessment of what public policy should be on tobacco smoking. In particular, the court found that the exceptions created by the Commission—such as for bars and small restaurants—were based on economic and social concerns not on public health.