Bullitt Fiscal Court, et al. v Bullitt County Board of Health

The Bullitt County Board of Health enacted a regulation for the county prohibiting tobacco smoking in all enclosed public places, in enclosed places of employment, in certain outdoor public places, and in private clubs within the county. The Fiscal Court and eight cities within the county filed a petition against the Board, arguing that the Board usurped its authority. A trial court held the regulation invalid, but the Court of Appeals reversed.

In this decision, the state Supreme Court found the Board exceeded its statutory authority when adopting the smoking prohibition.  

Bullitt Fiscal Court, et. al. v. Bullitt County Board of Health, No. 2013-SC-000023-DG (2014).

  • United States
  • Jun 19, 2014
  • Supreme Court of Kentucky

Parties

Plaintiff

  • Bullitt Fiscal Court
  • City of Fox Chase
  • City of Hebron Estates
  • City of Hunters Hollow
  • City of Lebanon
  • City of Mount Washington
  • City of Shepherdsville

Defendant Bullitt County Board of Health

Legislation Cited

KRS 212.230

Related Documents

Type of Litigation

Tobacco Control Topics

Substantive Issues

Type of Tobacco Product

None

"We note that the Kentucky General Assembly has regulated smoking in state-owned and managed facilities, thus acknowledging that smoking is a matter of public health. See KRS 61.165; KRS 61.167; KRS 438.050; KRS 196.245. However, the authority granted under KRS 212.230(1)(c), even when coupled with these additional statutes, fails to provide the Board with the teeth necessary to adopt and enforce the Regulation. Cf. 21 U.S.C. § 387 et seq. Moreover, our analysis is strengthened by Kentucky's longstanding rule that, where reasonable doubt exists concerning the proper scope of an administrative agency's authority, it should be resolved against the agency. See Parrish, 211 S.W.2d at 422 (citing Bd. of Educ. of City of Newport v. Scott, 224 S.W. 680, 681 (Ky. 1920)). Therefore, we conclude that there is insufficient grounding in statute for the Regulation adopted by the Board in this case."
"Given such dismal data, it is understandable that many health care professionals and government officials have sought to curtail the prevalence of this noxious fume. Promoting a smoke-free society is a reasonable goal grounded in sound research. However, when promotion becomes enactment, even the most virtuous causes must also be grounded in law. See FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U.S. 120, 161 (2000) (recognizing that "no matter how important, conspicuous, and controversial the issue . . . an administrative agency's power to regulate in the public interest must always be grounded in a valid grant of authority . . . .")."