A prisoner sued the Kentucky Department of Corrections claiming that the Department of Corrections’ Commissioner did not have the authority to adopt a tobacco-free policy at adult correctional facilities in the state. The court found that the Commissioner had clear authority under state law to implement a tobacco-free policy in state-run correctional facilities and dismissed the prisoner’s claim.
Mills v. Thompson & Parker, Kentucky Court of Appeals, No. 2011-CA-002211-MR (2013)
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.
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.
"The Commissioner’s authority over inmate smoking privileges dates back to before a general consensus existed regarding the health concerns associated with smoking and second-hand smoke. In 1952, the General Assembly afforded the Commissioner specific authority to restrict an inmate’s smoking privileges for discipline purposes. 1952 Ky. Acts ch. 139, § 15 ; KRS 196.245 (“The commissioner may permit or prohibit the practice of smoking by the inmates of the penal institutions, regardless of the age of the inmates, when he believes the regulation will enhance or improve the discipline of the inmates of these institutions.”). The General Assembly enacted a new statute, KRS 61.165, when the adverse health effects of smoking and second-hand smoke became more well-known. As discussed, KRS 61.165 directs the appropriate person, and in the case of correctional institutions that person would be the Commissioner of the Department of Corrections, to adopt a smoking policy, the precise parameters of that policy are left to the Commissioner’s discretion. Again, the statute places no limit on the Commissioner’s authority to implement a tobacco-free policy applicable to all state-run penal institutions."
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.
A prisoner sued the Kentucky Department of Corrections claiming that the Department of Corrections’ Commissioner did not have the authority to adopt a tobacco-free policy at adult correctional facilities in the state. The court found that the Commissioner had clear authority under state law to implement a tobacco-free policy in state-run correctional facilities and dismissed the prisoner’s claim.