In 2012 the City of Indianapolis and Marion County expanded a local smoking ordinance to include bars and taverns. A number of bar owners sued, seeking a preliminary and a permanent injunction to prohibit the ordinance from taking effect. The bar owners claimed that the ordinance violated their rights to due process, freedom of association, and equal protection and constituted a taking under the federal and state Constitutions. The court found that all of the bar owners’ claims failed. The court ruled that the ordinance did not violate due process or equal protection because the city had at least three rational reasons for adopting the ordinance: (1) to protect the health and safety of the general public; (2) to abate the nuisance effects of secondhand smoke; and (3) to positively impact the city’s economy by decreasing healthcare costs and increasing tourism. Additionally, the court found that the ordinance did not violate the freedom of association because it regulates conduct (i.e., smoking) not who is allowed to enter the bars. Finally, the ordinance did not constitute an unconstitutional taking because even though the bars have lost business they have not lost all economically beneficial use of their property. As a result, the court denied both the preliminary and permanent injunctions.
Goodpaster v. City of Indianapolis (S.D. Ind. 2013).
United States
Mar 6, 2013
United States District Court, Southern District of Indiana
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 procedural fairness. For example, a party may claim that a government agency did not consult with public or stakeholders when issuing regulations.
A discussion on whether the regulations impose an undue burden on the tobacco industry. This argument may involve the costs of implementing regulatory measures.
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.
"The fact that their businesses have suffered from an economic standpoint, while unfortunate, does not establish that they have lost "all economically beneficial use" of their property. Therefore, Plaintiffs' takings claim cannot succeed on the merits."
"Plaintiffs argue that, because of the 2012 Smoking Ordinance, they have "lost the liberty interest of being able to operate their privately-owned businesses for clientele who choose to either smoke or choose to associate with others who smoke." (Plaintiff's Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law # 203). In addition, "[o]thers have lost the ability to choose to congregate in those establishments and associate with others of like mind and habits." (Id.).
Plaintiffs have not established that a relationship with smoking clientele and/or other smokers is of sufficient selectivity or size to be the type of intimate relationship worthy of constitutional protection. Simply describing the Plaintiff bars as "small, neighborhood bars" does not satisfy those elements. In addition, Plaintiffs have not established that the 2012 Smoking Ordinance regulates a "relationship." In fact, it does not. Instead, it regulates conduct by prohibiting those who smoke cigarettes from smoking inside bars or taverns located within Marion County. ...Thus, there is no basis for concluding that Plaintiffs' or their patrons' rights of intimate association are infringed by the 2012 Smoking Ordinance. ..."
"The court finds the 2012 Smoking Ordinance does not violate the Due Process Clause because it is rationally related to three government interests: (1) to protect the health and safety of the general public, (2) to impact the City's economy in a positive manner through healthcare and tourism, and (3) to abate SHS's nuisance effect."
"Lastly, the City presented evidence that SHS is considered by many to be a nuisance.
SHS is a particulate that can be seen in the air and that reduces air quality. SHS also has a strong odor that many people find unpleasant. As a result, many people would prefer not to patronize establishments due
to the presence and odor of SHS. (Id. at 71, 119, 134-35, 241).
The nuisance effect of SHS is a rational basis supporting the constitutionality of the 2012 Smoking Ordinance."
"Dr. Zollinger testified that the healthcare costs associated with treating diseases and deaths associated with SHS are in the millions of dollars - $56.2 million in 2002 and $195.3 million in 2010. (Hearing Ex. KK at 21; Hearing Ex. MM at 3; Hearing Tr. at 267, 273). As a result, the City could reasonably conclude that the economic impact of treating disease and death related to SHS was a rational basis. In addition, the City established that it has already invested millions of dollars in upgrading its convention infrastructure in an already extremely competitive market. (Hearing Tr. at 421-22).
Gahl testified that because many host cities require a comprehensive smoking ordinance to be considered for an award, the existence of a tougher smoking ordinance makes the City more competitive for upper tier convention business. (Id. at 421-22).
As a result, the City could rationally conclude that the 2012 Smoking Ordinance could potentially bring millions of dollars in new convention business and tourism money as the City competes for business it previously could not win."
"The City's 2012 Smoking Ordinance is rationally justified by the many governmental studies linking SHS to a number of serious health issues, including cancer, cardiovascular disease, and respiratory disease. Accordingly,
there is a rational basis to conclude that the Smoking Ordinance protects all people -owners, employees, and patrons alike - from the harm of SHS..."
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.
In 2012 the City of Indianapolis and Marion County expanded a local smoking ordinance to include bars and taverns. A number of bar owners sued, seeking a preliminary and a permanent injunction to prohibit the ordinance from taking effect. The bar owners claimed that the ordinance violated their rights to due process, freedom of association, and equal protection and constituted a taking under the federal and state Constitutions. The court found that all of the bar owners’ claims failed. The court ruled that the ordinance did not violate due process or equal protection because the city had at least three rational reasons for adopting the ordinance: (1) to protect the health and safety of the general public; (2) to abate the nuisance effects of secondhand smoke; and (3) to positively impact the city’s economy by decreasing healthcare costs and increasing tourism. Additionally, the court found that the ordinance did not violate the freedom of association because it regulates conduct (i.e., smoking) not who is allowed to enter the bars. Finally, the ordinance did not constitute an unconstitutional taking because even though the bars have lost business they have not lost all economically beneficial use of their property. As a result, the court denied both the preliminary and permanent injunctions.