TOBACCO CONTROL LAWS

Fagan, et al. v. Axelrod, et al.

Petitioners, citizens of the State of New York who regularly used tobacco products, claimed that the New York State legislature violated their rights to liberty and privacy to smoke when it adopted new regulations prohibiting the smoking of tobacco products in certain public places. The petitioners further alleged that the prohibitions created irrational and capricious restrictions that infringed on their rights to due process and the equal protection of laws. The New York Court of Appeals had previously found that the same restrictions were unconstitutional as passed by an administrative agency, the New York Public Health Council, because the agency's regulations resolved certain social, economic, and political concerns that were uniquely for the state legislature to decide. In the present case, the Supreme Court of Albany County found that the regulations were constitutionally valid because the state legislature possessed the right to pass comprehensive public health regulations and because the regulations derived from rational governmental health concerns without infringing on any of the petitioners' fundamental rights.

DOWNLOAD DOCUMENT

Fagan, et al. v. Axelrod, et al., 146 Misc.2d 286, Supreme Court, Albany County (1990).

  • United States
  • Jan 10, 1990
  • Supreme Court, Albany County

Parties

Plaintiff Joseph Fagan, et al.

Defendant David M. Axelrod, as Commissioner of the New York State Department of Health, et al.

Legislation Cited

New York Laws of 1989, Chapter 244, Article 13-E, "Regulation Of Smoking In Certain Public Areas"

Related Documents

None

Type of Litigation

Challenge to Government Policies Relating to Tobacco Control/Public Health
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.

Tobacco Control Topics

Smoke Free Measures
Measures to reduce or eliminate exposure to tobacco smoke. (See FCTC Art. 8)

Substantive Issues

Right to Equal Protection
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.
Right to Procedural Due Process
A violation of the right to procedural fairness. For example, a party may claim that a government agency did not consult with public or stakeholders when issuing regulations.
Right to Self-Determination
Smokers’ rights groups may claim that governments interfere with consumers’ freedom of choice when they regulate tobacco use.
"Right to Smoke"
The tobacco companies and some individual plaintiffs argue that there is a right to smoke.
Right to Privacy
This is the right to a private personal and family life without intrusion from the government.
Sufficiency of Scientific Evidence
A discussion on whether current scientific evidence is sufficient to justify the regulatory measures.
Ultra Vires Regulation
Subsequent regulations exceed the scope of the originating law.

Type of Tobacco Product

None

1400 I Street N.W.,
Suite 1200,
Washington, DC 20005
United States of America

Phone: (202) 296-5469

Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids is a BBB-accredited charity and a
Guidestar Exchange Gold Participant.

© 2024 Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids | Trademarks | Copyright | Privacy

Site created and maintained by