TOBACCO CONTROL LAWS

Goodpaster et al. v. City of Indianapolis

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 appeals court affirmed an earlier ruling upholding the local smoking ordinance. The court found that all of the bar owners claims failed. In particular, the court found that the government could have had a rational reason for adopting the law and for continuing to exclude cigar and hookah bars from the ordinance.

DOWNLOAD DOCUMENT

Goodpaster v. City of Indianapolis, 736 F.3d 1060 (7th Cir. 2013).

  • United States
  • Nov 25, 2013
  • United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
View Case History

Parties

Plaintiff

  • Chas J. Rogers
  • Patricia Rexroatt
  • Rick Cunningham
  • Rift Raft Incorporated
  • Wanda Goodpaster

Defendant

  • City of Indianapolis
  • City-County Council of the Consolidated City of Indianapolis
  • Marion County, Indiana
  • Mayor of Indianapolis, Indiana

Cited Legislation

Related Documents

None

Type of Litigation

Challenge to Government Policies Relating to Tobacco Control/Public Health
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.

Tobacco Control Topics

Smoke Free Measures
Measures to reduce or eliminate exposure to tobacco smoke. (See FCTC Art. 8)

Substantive Issues

Right to Freedom of Association
Connected to the right to create organizations, e.g., labor unions.
Right to Equal Protection
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.
Right to Procedural Due Process
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.
Procedural Defect
The court might consider procedural matters without touching the merits of the case. These might include: improper joinder, when third parties, such as Health NGOs or government officials, seek to become parties to the suit; lack of standing, where a plaintiff fails to meet the minimum requirements to bring suit; lack of personal jurisdiction, where the court does not have jurisdiction to rule over the defendant; or lack of subject matter jurisdiction, where the court does not have jurisdiction over the issue at suit.
Sufficiency of Scientific Evidence
A discussion on whether current scientific evidence is sufficient to justify the regulatory measures.

Type of Tobacco Product

None

1400 I Street N.W.,
Suite 1200,
Washington, DC 20005
United States of America

Phone: (202) 296-5469

Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids is a BBB-accredited charity and a
Guidestar Exchange Gold Participant.

Shop at AmazonSmile and Amazon will make a donation to the Campaign
for Tobacco-Free Kids.

© 2022 Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids | Trademarks | Copyright | Privacy

Site created and maintained by