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.
Type of Tobacco Product
None
Limitations regarding the use of quotes The quotes provided here reflect statements from a specific decision. Accordingly, the International Legal Consortium (ILC) cannot guarantee that an appellate court has not reversed a lower court decision which may influence the applicability or influence of a given quote. All quotes have been selected based on the subjective evaluations undertaken by the ILC meaning that quotes provided here may not accurately or comprehensively represent a given court’s opinion or conclusion, as such quotes may have originally appeared alongside other negative opinions or accompanying facts. Further, some quotes are derived from unofficial English translations, which may alter their original meaning. We emphasize the need to review the original decision and related decisions before authoritatively relying on quotes. Using quotes provided here should not be construed as legal advice and is not intended to be a substitute for legal counsel on any subject matter in any jurisdiction. Please see the full limitations at https://www.tobaccocontrollaws.org/about.
"Under the reasonable person standard of Harlow and Anderson, it is not unreasonable to assume that in 1998-99, five years after the decision in Helling, prison officials knew or should have known that even though Alvarado was housed with a non-smoking cellmate on a non-smoking unit, in light of his severe asthmatic condition, an environment in which ambient tobacco smoke is present could pose a serious risk to his future health, thereby constituting a violation of the Eighth Amendment. Like the complaint in Helling, Alvarado's complaint, liberally construed, alleges that defendants' deliberate failure to enforce smoking rules is resulting in his exposure to levels of ETS that are posing an unreasonable threat to his future health. See 509 U.S. at 28, 36. Given the decision in Helling, the right of a prisoner to not be subjected to a serious risk of his future health resulting from ETS was clearly established in 1998-99. Both prongs of the Wilson test have been met to defeat defendants' qualified immunity defense at this time."
Limitations regarding the use of quotes The quotes provided here reflect statements from a specific decision. Accordingly, the International Legal Consortium (ILC) cannot guarantee that an appellate court has not reversed a lower court decision which may influence the applicability or influence of a given quote. All quotes have been selected based on the subjective evaluations undertaken by the ILC meaning that quotes provided here may not accurately or comprehensively represent a given court’s opinion or conclusion, as such quotes may have originally appeared alongside other negative opinions or accompanying facts. Further, some quotes are derived from unofficial English translations, which may alter their original meaning. We emphasize the need to review the original decision and related decisions before authoritatively relying on quotes. Using quotes provided here should not be construed as legal advice and is not intended to be a substitute for legal counsel on any subject matter in any jurisdiction. Please see the full limitations at https://www.tobaccocontrollaws.org/about.
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.