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.
Several inmates in the custody of the District of Columbia's Department of Corrections brought an action against the government claiming that prison officials failed to implement the correctional institution's non-smoking policies, thereby exposing the inmates to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS). The plaintiffs alleged that such exposure violated the constitutional ban on cruel and unusual punishment. The trial court found for the plaintiffs and awarded permanent injunctive relief. On appeal, the Court overturned the district court's judgment, finding that the plaintiffs had failed to demonstrate that the pervasiveness of ETS within the correctional institution was unreasonable and constituted a serious risk to their health. Furthermore, the Court found that the existence of the non-smoking policy in itself indicated that the prison officials did not act with deliberate indifference to the risks of exposure to ETS.