TOBACCO CONTROL LAWS

Beatie v. New York City

A cigar smoker challenged the validity of a New York City ordinance regulating smoking in public areas, claiming that the regulation of cigar smoke violated the constitutional guarantees to due process and equal protection of the law because the city lacked a rational basis for the regulation.  The Court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, finding that the existing scientific evidence pertaining to the health effects of cigar smoke, though conflicting, provided a rational basis for the regulating cigar smoke.  The Court further found that the classification of all tobacco smoke as the target of regulation, though perhaps overly broad, was reasonable and did not constitute a violation of equal protection.

Beatie v. New York City, et al., No. 95 Civ. 3429 (DLC), United States District Court, Southern District New York (1996).

  • United States
  • Aug 6, 1996
  • United States District Court, Southern District New York
View Case History Download Document

Parties

Plaintiff Russel H. Beatie, Jr.

Defendant

  • Council of the City of New York
  • New York City
  • Rudolph Giuliani, Mayor, as Mayor of the City of New York

Legislation Cited

Smoke-Free Air Act (New York City Administrative Code, Section 17, Chapter 5)

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.
Sufficiency of Scientific Evidence
A discussion on whether current scientific evidence is sufficient to justify the regulatory measures.

Type of Tobacco Product

Cigars, cigarillos, bidis, and other similar products
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).
View Limitations
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.

© 2025 Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids | Trademarks | Copyright | Privacy

Site created and maintained by