Dutchess/Putnam Restaurant & Tavern Assn. v. Putnam County Dept. of Health
Plaintiffs, a restaurant association and two restaurant owners, brought an action to stop the enforcement of a provision in the Putnam County Sanitary Code, adopted by the Putnam County Department of Health (Department) to regulate smoking in public places. According to the plaintiffs, the provision violated the separation of powers doctrine of the New York Constitution because it regulated smoking in commercial establishments more strictly than those found in New York State's previously existing Public Health Law. The plaintiffs also alleged that the Department's regulation violated their federal constitutional rights to equal protection and free speech. The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York found that the Department violated New York's separation of powers doctrine insofar as it had considered non-health related aspects when adopting the provision at issue, as well as insofar as the regulation concerned an issue that the New York State Legislature had specifically and unanimous decided not to regulate further. Accordingly, the Court permanently prohibited the Department from enforcing the regulation. However, the Court found no evidence to support the plaintiffs' claims of federal equal protection and free speech violations.
Dutchess/Putnam Restaurant & Tavern Association, Inc., et al. v. Putnam County Department of Health, et al., 178 F.Supp.2d 396 (S.D.N.Y. 2001).
United States
Dec 19, 2001
United States District Court, Southern District of New York
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 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.
A violation of the right to expression, free speech or similar right to express oneself without limitation or censorship. The industry may claim that a regulation infringes on their right to communicate with customers and the public. Similarly, they may claim that mandated warnings infringe on their freedom to communicate as they desire.
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.
"I will not depart from the reasoning of my colleagues in the New York State Court of Appeals and in the district courts of the Second Circuit. As the Court found in Justiana, "it is well known to those outside the scientific community that [secondhand smoke] exposure may lead to the development of serious health problems." Id., 45 F.Supp.2d at 245. Moreover, the fact that the Putnam County smoking regulations mimic the regulations drafted by the Niagara County and Dutchess County Departments of Health, weakens even further the Board's argument that it used its medical expertise in crafting these regulations. In conclusion, the Board, in enacting the smoking regulations in Article 7 of the Putnam County Sanitary Code, exceeded its authority as a state administrative agency, and is in violation of the New York State Constitution's separation of powers doctrine."
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.
Plaintiffs, a restaurant association and two restaurant owners, brought an action to stop the enforcement of a provision in the Putnam County Sanitary Code, adopted by the Putnam County Department of Health (Department) to regulate smoking in public places. According to the plaintiffs, the provision violated the separation of powers doctrine of the New York Constitution because it regulated smoking in commercial establishments more strictly than those found in New York State's previously existing Public Health Law. The plaintiffs also alleged that the Department's regulation violated their federal constitutional rights to equal protection and free speech. The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York found that the Department violated New York's separation of powers doctrine insofar as it had considered non-health related aspects when adopting the provision at issue, as well as insofar as the regulation concerned an issue that the New York State Legislature had specifically and unanimous decided not to regulate further. Accordingly, the Court permanently prohibited the Department from enforcing the regulation. However, the Court found no evidence to support the plaintiffs' claims of federal equal protection and free speech violations.