A group of Native Americans challenged a policy implemented by prison authorities that banned all use of tobacco, including for religious purposes. South Dakota has the highest rate of Native Americans in the prison system and some of them use tobacco as part of their religious ceremonies. After gradually reducing the availability of tobacco in the prisons, the policy changed to complete ban. The prisoners challenged the ban based on religious freedom and the corresponding federal legislation (RULIPA). The court held the prisoners had shown the total ban on tobacco was a substantial burden on the exercise of their religion and that the authorities had not demonstrated a compelling governmental interest, or that they had used the least restrictive means to further that interest. The court ordered the parties to agree to a new policy embodying the court’s decision and submit it to the court for approval.
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.
A violation of the right to expression, free speech or similar right to express oneself without limitation or censorship. The industry may claim that a regulation infringes on their right to communicate with customers and the public. Similarly, they may claim that mandated warnings infringe on their freedom to communicate as they desire.
A group of Native Americans challenged a policy implemented by prison authorities that banned all use of tobacco, including for religious purposes. South Dakota has the highest rate of Native Americans in the prison system and some of them use tobacco as part of their religious ceremonies. After gradually reducing the availability of tobacco in the prisons, the policy changed to complete ban. The prisoners challenged the ban based on religious freedom and the corresponding federal legislation (RULIPA). The court held the prisoners had shown the total ban on tobacco was a substantial burden on the exercise of their religion and that the authorities had not demonstrated a compelling governmental interest, or that they had used the least restrictive means to further that interest. The court ordered the parties to agree to a new policy embodying the court’s decision and submit it to the court for approval.