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 institute's non-smoking policies, thereby exposing the inmates to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS). The plaintiffs alleged that such exposure violated a city ordinance prohibiting smoking in public facilities as well as the constitutional ban on cruel and unusual punishment. The Court held that the government violated the ban on cruel and unusual punishment, finding that prison officials acted with deliberate indifference to the unreasonable risks to the inmates' health caused by involuntary exposure to ETS. The Court observed that such indifference was demonstrated by evidence revealing that both prison guards and inmates smoked in non-smoking areas in violation of the non-smoking policies. The Court issued a permanent injunction ordering the government to take steps to protect the plaintiffs from further exposure to ETS.