TOBACCO CONTROL LAWS

NYC C.L.A.S.H. v. City of New York, et al.

An association of smoking proponents challenged the constitutionality of tobacco control regulations in New York City that prohibit smoking in most indoor public places, including bars and restaurants. The Court found that the plaintiff had standing to bring the issue before the Court and that the issue was justiciable.  The Court, however, granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment and disposed of the matter, finding that the regulations do not violate smokers' rights to association, assembly, speech, travel, equal protection, contract, or due process. The Court further held that the bans are not arbitrary but were rationally enacted based on scientific evidence to address legitimate state interests.  (The attached copy of the court's decision was obtained from Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) (www.ash.org)).

DOWNLOAD DOCUMENT

NYC C.L.A.S.H., Inc. v. City of New York, et al., 315 F. Supp. 2d 461, United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (2004).

  • United States
  • Apr 21, 2004
  • United States District Court for the Southern District of New York

Parties

Plaintiff NYC C.L.A.S.H., Inc.

Defendant

  • Antonia C. Novello, in her official capacity as Commissioner of the New York State Department of Health
  • City of New York
  • Elliot Spitzer, in his official capacity as Attorney General of the State of New York
  • Thomas R. Frieden, in his official capacity as Commissioner of the City of New York Department of Health and Mental Hygiene

Legislation Cited

New York City Smoke-Free Air Act, N.Y.C. Admininstrative Code Sections 17-501 et seq.

New York State Clean Indoor Air Act, N.Y. Public Health Law Sections 1399-n et seq.

Related Documents

None

Type of Litigation

Challenge to Government Policies Relating to Tobacco Control/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.

Tobacco Control Topics

Smoke Free Measures
Measures to reduce or eliminate exposure to tobacco smoke. (See FCTC Art. 8)

Substantive Issues

Right to Freedom of Association
Connected to the right to create organizations, e.g., labor unions.
Right to Equal Protection
A violation of the right to equal protection under the law, or another form of discrimination. The industry may claim that regulations discriminate against tobacco companies or tobacco products. Smokers may claim that addiction is a health condition, so regulations discriminate against them based on their health condition. Facilities subject to smoke free laws may claim that smoke free (SF) exceptions (e.g., hotel rooms, mental hospitals, etc.) unfairly discriminate against SF businesses because the law should apply to all locations equally.
Right to Freedom of Expression
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.
Right of Freedom of Movement and Residence
A violation of freedom of the right to travel, reside in, and/or work in any part of the state where one pleases within the limits of respect for the liberty and rights of others. Smokers may claim that smoke free laws violate this right.
Right to Judicial Protection
This is the right to access the court system and have the courts enforce your rights.
Right to Procedural Due Process
A violation of the right to procedural fairness. For example, a party may claim that a government agency did not consult with public or stakeholders when issuing regulations.
Right to Self-Determination
Smokers’ rights groups may claim that governments interfere with consumers’ freedom of choice when they regulate tobacco use.
Procedural Defect
The court might consider procedural matters without touching the merits of the case. These might include: improper joinder, when third parties, such as Health NGOs or government officials, seek to become parties to the suit; lack of standing, where a plaintiff fails to meet the minimum requirements to bring suit; lack of personal jurisdiction, where the court does not have jurisdiction to rule over the defendant; or lack of subject matter jurisdiction, where the court does not have jurisdiction over the issue at suit.
Sufficiency of Scientific Evidence
A discussion on whether current scientific evidence is sufficient to justify the regulatory measures.

Type of Tobacco Product

None

1400 I Street N.W.,
Suite 1200,
Washington, DC 20005
United States of America

Phone: (202) 296-5469

Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids is a BBB-accredited charity and a
Guidestar Exchange Gold Participant.

© 2025 Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids | Trademarks | Copyright | Privacy

Site created and maintained by