A prisoner in Wisconsin brought a case against prison and state officials, claiming his exposure to second-hand smoke while in prison was a violation of his Eighth Amendment right to be protected from cruel and unusual punishment. The prisoner had severe chronic asthma which was made worse by exposure to smoke. He alleged that despite being in a non-smoking section of the prison he was still exposed to tobacco smoke because of lack of enforcement of non-smoking rules and because smoking was permitted in common areas. The defendants sought preliminary dismissal of the case on the ground of qualified immunity. The trial court denied the dismissal motion and here the appellate court agrees. The court held the plaintiff had established a deprivation of an actual constitutional right and that right was clearly established at the time of the violation based on the U.S. Supreme Court case of Helling v. McKinney.
An individual or organization may sue their own government in order to advance or protect the public interest. For example, an NGO may sue the government claiming the government’s weak tobacco control laws violated their constitutional right to health.
A violation of the right to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health. Public health advocates may claim the public’s right to health is violated by weak tobacco control measures, industry tactics, or an organization’s or smokers’ actions.
A violation of the protection against cruel and unusual punishment. For example, prisoners may claim that exposure to secondhand smoke violates this right.
A prisoner in Wisconsin brought a case against prison and state officials, claiming his exposure to second-hand smoke while in prison was a violation of his Eighth Amendment right to be protected from cruel and unusual punishment. The prisoner had severe chronic asthma which was made worse by exposure to smoke. He alleged that despite being in a non-smoking section of the prison he was still exposed to tobacco smoke because of lack of enforcement of non-smoking rules and because smoking was permitted in common areas. The defendants sought preliminary dismissal of the case on the ground of qualified immunity. The trial court denied the dismissal motion and here the appellate court agrees. The court held the plaintiff had established a deprivation of an actual constitutional right and that right was clearly established at the time of the violation based on the U.S. Supreme Court case of Helling v. McKinney.