“The mere fact that there may be disagreement within the scientific community about the degree of the harmful effect, or even whether the studies done to date have established the existence of any harmful effect, of cigar smoke as compared to cigarette smoke on those who inhale it, does not create a genuine issue of fact as to whether the City Council had a rational basis to include cigars within its ban. Even where evidence can be marshalled in support of two different views, the ultimate legislative choice between the two positions is not irrational or arbitrary. . . On the contrary, it is precisely when the facts may be disputed that courts must defer to legislative judgment.”
Beatie v. New York City
Beatie v. New York City, et al., No. 95 Civ. 3429 (DLC), United States District Court, Southern District New York (1996).
- United States
- Aug 6, 1996
- United States District Court, Southern District New York
A cigar smoker challenged the validity of a New York City ordinance regulating smoking in public areas, claiming that the regulation of cigar smoke violated the constitutional guarantees to due process and equal protection of the law because the city lacked a rational basis for the regulation. The Court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, finding that the existing scientific evidence pertaining to the health effects of cigar smoke, though conflicting, provided a rational basis for the regulating cigar smoke. The Court further found that the classification of all tobacco smoke as the target of regulation, though perhaps overly broad, was reasonable and did not constitute a violation of equal protection.