A village enacted a smoke-free law that had a single exception for Tobacco House, a cigar lounge, so long as that Tobacco House sold nothing but tobacco products and that the owners maintained a business license in good standing. The owner of the cigar lounge pled guilty for tax evasion, and the village later denied the business license. The cigar lounge claimed the license denial violated equal protection and that the smoke-free law violated due process because it was unconstitutionally vague. The village moved to dismiss the case, and the court agreed.
Saad v. Village of Orland Park, No. 11 C 7419 (N.D. Ill., 2012).
United States
Jul 9, 2012
United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division
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.
Any combustible tobacco product that is designed to be smoked – other than cigarettes – including cigars, cigarillos, little cigars, blunts, and bidis or beedis (small, flavored filterless Indian cigarettes).
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 meaning of the Ordinance is understandable to a person of ordinary intelligence. Tobacco House will be permitted to operate under the exemption to the smoking ban so long as either the "current owner" or "other person in control of such business" continues to maintain "the tobacco dealer license issued by the Village" in good standing. Vill. Code § 6-2-2-12(3). A corollary is that if the current owner or other person in control of Tobacco House does not have a tobacco dealer license in good standing, the smoking ban exemption does not apply. The facts of this case do not call the plain language of the Ordinance into question. Saad, who is the person in control of the business, does not have a tobacco dealer license. The Ordinance gave Saad notice that the exemption would no longer apply once she received ownership of Tobacco House because it clearly states that whoever controls the business must have a tobacco dealer license in good standing. Saad and her husband, Abbas Ghaddar, also should have known that Ghaddar had no authority to transfer the license to Saad. See Vill. Code § 7-1-8. Therefore, as applied to the facts of this case, the Ordinance provides sufficiently explicit standards to put plaintiffs on notice of the law and prevent arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement. Because the challenged ordinance is sufficiently clear, the Village's motion to dismiss will be granted as to Count II."
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 village enacted a smoke-free law that had a single exception for Tobacco House, a cigar lounge, so long as that Tobacco House sold nothing but tobacco products and that the owners maintained a business license in good standing. The owner of the cigar lounge pled guilty for tax evasion, and the village later denied the business license. The cigar lounge claimed the license denial violated equal protection and that the smoke-free law violated due process because it was unconstitutionally vague. The village moved to dismiss the case, and the court agreed.