TOBACCO CONTROL LAWS

Beatie v. New York City

Plaintiff, an attorney and self-described cigar aficionado, claimed that the City of New York's Smoke-Free Air Act (Act), prohibiting the use of tobacco products in public places, should not apply to the smoking of cigars because the existing evidence demonstrating the harms of environmental tobacco smoke pertained only to cigarettes. The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York found that the measure applied to cigar smoke. The plaintiff appealed, claiming that the Act lacked a rational basis for its enactment and that the administrative process by which New York passed the Act violated the plaintiff's substantive due process rights. The United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, affirmed the constitutionality of extending the Act's prohibitions to include cigar smoke.  

Beatie v. City of New York, 123 F.3d 707, United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, 1997.

  • United States
  • Sep 2, 1997
  • United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit
View Case History Download Document

Parties

Plaintiff Russell H. Beatie, Jr.

Defendant

  • City of New York
  • Council of the City of New York
  • Rudolph Guiliani

Legislation Cited

Smoke-Free Air Act (New York City Administrative Code, Section 17, Chapter 5)

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 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 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.
Sufficiency of Scientific Evidence
A discussion on whether current scientific evidence is sufficient to justify the regulatory measures.

Type of Tobacco Product

None

View Limitations
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