VFW Post v. City of Evansville and Evansville Common Council
The City of Evansville enacted a smoke-free ordinance banning smoking in workplaces and other public places within the city limits with the exception of riverboat casinos. Several private fraternal organizations and tavern owners challenged the law as a violation of the Indiana Constitution. The plaintiffs claimed the ordinance violated the Privileges and Immunities clause by allowing the exception for the riverboat casinos and infringed their Right to Speak. Giving broad deference to the legislature of the city, the Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of the case. The court said the private clubs were not similarly situated as the casino and the prohibition on smoking was incidental to their freedoms to speak and assemble.
VFW Post 2953, et. al. v. City of Evansville and Evansville Common Council, No. 82A01-1206-PL-255 (Ind. App., 2013)
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.
"Finally, in determining whether Section 23 has been violated, courts are to exercise substantial deference to legislative discretion…Here, it is true that an individual who patronizes Casino Aztar may smoke or may be exposed to second-hand smoke although if he or she chooses to patronize a private club in the City, smoking is banned. Fraternal Organizations observe that smoking in either place impacts patrons' health. Clearly, however, Fraternal Organizations' petition for relief is not targeted towards expanding the ban such that riverboat patrons are free of secondhand smoke. Rather, Fraternal Organizations seek a declaration that the ban is facially unconstitutional. Arguing that there are pervasive and equal health risks of second-hand smoke does not advance this position. Nonetheless, when 87% of riverboat patrons are non-city residents, City legislation has greatly diminished impact on their lifestyle and health choices. In these circumstances, the absence of precise congruity in legislation is entitled to deference. Fraternal Organizations have not satisfied their substantial burden to demonstrate that the challenged ordinance violates the Equal Privileges and Immunities of the Indiana Constitution."
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.
The City of Evansville enacted a smoke-free ordinance banning smoking in workplaces and other public places within the city limits with the exception of riverboat casinos. Several private fraternal organizations and tavern owners challenged the law as a violation of the Indiana Constitution. The plaintiffs claimed the ordinance violated the Privileges and Immunities clause by allowing the exception for the riverboat casinos and infringed their Right to Speak. Giving broad deference to the legislature of the city, the Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of the case. The court said the private clubs were not similarly situated as the casino and the prohibition on smoking was incidental to their freedoms to speak and assemble.