"In view of the foregoing and the 'considerable latitude' municipalities are afforded in crafting local rules, § 22 is not the type of 'clear' expression of the Legislature's intent necessary to preclude local action. That the bylaw 'augments' the protections available Statewide pursuant to the minimum age provision does not render it 'inconsistent, contrary or conflicting' with that provision. Instead, as expressly permitted by the second sentence of § 22, the bylaw is the type of local measure that 'limits or prohibits the purchase of tobacco products.' St. 2018, c. 157, § 22. In short, the bylaw is not in 'sharp conflict' with the act's minimum age provision as required for a determination of preemption."
Six Brothers Inc. v. Town of Brookline
Six Brothers Inc. et al. v. Town of Brookline, SJC-13434, Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (2024).
- United States
- Mar 8, 2024
- Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
Parties
Legislation Cited
Related Documents
Type of Litigation
Tobacco Control Topics
Substantive Issues
Type of Tobacco Product
"The retailers contend that the birthdate cutoff of January 1, 2000, is arbitrary and thus not rationally related to the town's legitimate interest. We disagree. Line drawing –- a legislative necessity -- does not, without more, make a law unconstitutional. See Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551, 574 (2005) (line drawing 'is subject, of course, to the objections always raised against categorical rules,' but 'a line must be drawn'). The bylaw's birthdate classification, starting in the year 2000, is rationally related to the town's legitimate interest in mitigating tobacco use overall and in particular by minors."
Several retailers brought an action against the Town of Brookline in response to its adoption of a bylaw, enacted pursuant to the Tobacco Act, that prohibits the sale of tobacco products to individuals born on or after January 1, 2000. The retailers claimed the bylaw is preempted by the Tobacco Act and violates the Massachusetts Constitution’s equal protection provisions. The court found that the bylaw does not frustrate the purpose of the act, nor does it violate the guarantees of equal protection. As a result, the court affirmed the lower court’s dismissal of the retailers’ complaint.