Bullitt County Board of Health v. Bullitt County Fiscal Court, et al.
This appeal comes from various municipalities that challenged a Bullitt County Board of Health’s regulation banning smoking in “public places, places of employment, private clubs and other outdoor venues” within the county. The cities were initially successful, when the trial court found the regulation invalid. In this opinion, the appellate court reverses that decision and finds the smoke-free regulation a valid exercise of the Board of Health’s authority. The court relied heavily on a Kentucky Supreme Court decision that found similar smoke-free ordinances passed by a different county to be within the county’s powers and thus valid. A dissenting opinion in this appeal argued that the Board of Health did not cite any local studies as to the health effects of second-hand smoke in the county and that the Board exceeded its powers.
Bullitt County Board of Health v. Bullitt County Fiscal Court, Bullitt County Kentucky et. al. NO. 2011-CA-001798-MR (2012)
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.
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 right to procedural fairness. For example, a party may claim that a government agency did not consult with public or stakeholders when issuing regulations.
The legislative branch, through its tobacco control legislation, may have granted too much authority to the executive branch to implement measures administratively.
Subsequent regulations exceed the scope of the originating law.
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.
"However, I have serious doubt as to the actual relationship of the proposed regulation to the public health conditions that may exist in Bullitt County, given the Board relied exclusively on national and international studies on the adverse health effects of second-hand smoke. For example, in Regulation 10-01, under Section 1 styled “Findings and Intent” there is absolutely no reference to smoking and adverse health effects in Bullitt County – there are no local studies, no county-wide statistics, or any relevant local information cited by the Board of Health to support the Regulation. In other words, the Board of Health made no findings on specific conditions or consequences in Bullitt County regarding smoking and second-hand smoke and its adverse health effects on the residents of Bullitt County. Rather, the Board of Health cites to several national studies by federal agencies dating back as far as thirteen years before the Bullitt County Regulation was enacted as well as a study by the California Environmental Protection Agency, a hospital myocardial infarction study from Helena, Montana, two studies published in the British Medical Journal, one study by the Nova Scotia Department of Health, and of course, I cannot leave out the report from the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers. The citizens of Bullitt County, per Kentucky statutes, are mandated to be the sole focus of the Board’s regulatory duties and powers. KRS 212.210, KRS 212.230, and KRS 212.240. There is absolutely nothing contained in the boilerplate findings of the Board of Health in the proposed Regulation which indicates they have addressed the second-hand smoke health issue specifically as it relates to the citizens of Bullitt County. For this reason alone, the circuit court was within its authority to enjoin the implementation of the Regulation."
"As to the second and third issues, whether the smoking ban in question relates to public health, and whether the regulation in question is reasonable, these issues were answered by the Kentucky Supreme Court in Lexington Fayette County Food & Beverage Ass’n v. Lexington-Fayette Urban County Gov’t, 131 S.W.3d 745 (Ky. 2004). In that case, the Court stated that “[p]rotecting the public from exposure to environmental tobacco smoke, sometimes known as second-hand smoke, can be the proper object of the police power of local government.” Id. at 750. As to the reasonableness of the Bullitt ordinances, they are in no meaningful way distinguishable from those approved in Lexington Fayette County. The pre-emption issue raised by Appellees in this case was similarly disposed of by Lexington Fayette County. Id. at 749-52."
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.
This appeal comes from various municipalities that challenged a Bullitt County Board of Health’s regulation banning smoking in “public places, places of employment, private clubs and other outdoor venues” within the county. The cities were initially successful, when the trial court found the regulation invalid. In this opinion, the appellate court reverses that decision and finds the smoke-free regulation a valid exercise of the Board of Health’s authority. The court relied heavily on a Kentucky Supreme Court decision that found similar smoke-free ordinances passed by a different county to be within the county’s powers and thus valid. A dissenting opinion in this appeal argued that the Board of Health did not cite any local studies as to the health effects of second-hand smoke in the county and that the Board exceeded its powers.