A New York state Public Health Council adopted a regulation prohibiting smoking in most indoor areas. The court ruled that the regulation was invalid because the Commission exceeded the scope of its authority and usurped the lawmaking power of the Legislature in violation of the separation of powers doctrine. The court stressed that it was not basing its decision on the harmful effects of tobacco smoke—which were not disputed—but only on the authority of the Commission.
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.
A New York state Public Health Council adopted a regulation prohibiting smoking in most indoor areas. The court ruled that the regulation was invalid because the Commission exceeded the scope of its authority and usurped the lawmaking power of the Legislature in violation of the separation of powers doctrine. The court stressed that it was not basing its decision on the harmful effects of tobacco smoke—which were not disputed—but only on the authority of the Commission.