Four Montana cities passed smokefree air laws limiting or prohibiting smoking in buildings open to the public, including those with video gambling machines. In response, the Montana state legislature adopted a law that exempts businesses with video gambling machines from local smoking laws that are more stringent than state law. A variety of public health groups brought a lawsuit against the state arguing that the state law should be declared unconstitutional because it deprives the cities of their right of “self-government.” The court found that the state law did not constitute a prohibition on the power of local governments to enact smokefree air laws, in part because the state law exempts video gaming establishments from the local laws rather than limiting cities’ self-governing powers. As a result the court said the state law does not preempt the local smokefree air ordinances.
American Cancer Society, et al. v. State of Montana, 325 Mont. 70 (Mont. 2004).
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.
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.
The subject matter of the case should be dealt with at a state level or national level.
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.
"The State contends that it has preempted the area of state licensed VGMs and that the city ordinances are inconsistent with that pre-emption. The Legislature has provided through express statutory language that local governments with self-government powers are "prohibited" "the power to regulate any form of gambling, lotteries, or gift enterprises." Section 7-1-112(5), MCA. The question is, have the cities, in passing clean air ordinances, attempted to regulate a "form of gambling" in contravention of the express prohibition? The answer is no. The cities did not regulate gambling or video gaming in any sense of the word. They regulated clean indoor air. If the regulation of clean indoor air incidentally impacts VGM establishments, that does not mean that they have been regulated qua VGM establishments. Rather, they have been regulated as buildings open to the public. ... In conclusion, we hold that the challenged statute, § 7-1-120, MCA, does not set forth a prohibition of self-governing powers under Article XI, Section 6, of the Montana Constitution. Accordingly, it does not preempt any no-smoking ordinances adopted by any self-governing entity."
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.
Four Montana cities passed smokefree air laws limiting or prohibiting smoking in buildings open to the public, including those with video gambling machines. In response, the Montana state legislature adopted a law that exempts businesses with video gambling machines from local smoking laws that are more stringent than state law. A variety of public health groups brought a lawsuit against the state arguing that the state law should be declared unconstitutional because it deprives the cities of their right of “self-government.” The court found that the state law did not constitute a prohibition on the power of local governments to enact smokefree air laws, in part because the state law exempts video gaming establishments from the local laws rather than limiting cities’ self-governing powers. As a result the court said the state law does not preempt the local smokefree air ordinances.