TOBACCO CONTROL LAWS

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.

DOWNLOAD DOCUMENT

VFW Post 2953, et. al. v. City of Evansville and Evansville Common Council, No. 82A01-1206-PL-255 (Ind. App., 2013)

  • United States
  • Feb 15, 2013
  • Court of Appeals of Indiana
View Case History

Parties

Plaintiff

  • American Legion Post 265
  • Amvets Post 84
  • Germania Maennechor
  • Owls Nest #30
  • River City Eagles 4023
  • Riverbend Association
  • The Council of Clubs
  • VFW Post 1114
  • VFW Post 2953

Defendant

  • City of Evansville
  • Evansville Common Council

Legislation Cited

City of Evansville Ordinance G-2012-1 Amended

Indiana Constitution Article 1, Section 9 and 23

U.S. Contitution 1st Amendment

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 Health
A violation of the right to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health. Public health advocates may claim the public’s right to health is violated by weak tobacco control measures, industry tactics, or an organization’s or smokers’ actions.
Right to Freedom of Association
Connected to the right to create organizations, e.g., labor unions.
Right to Freedom of Expression
A violation of the right to expression, free speech or similar right to express oneself without limitation or censorship. The industry may claim that a regulation infringes on their right to communicate with customers and the public. Similarly, they may claim that mandated warnings infringe on their freedom to communicate as they desire.
Right to a Healthy and Safe Environment
A violation of the right to live in a safe and healthy environment.
"Right to Smoke"
The tobacco companies and some individual plaintiffs argue that there is a right to smoke.
Legal Product
Tobacco is a legal product and the tobacco industry is a legal industry.
Undue Burden
A discussion on whether the regulations impose an undue burden on the tobacco industry. This argument may involve the costs of implementing regulatory measures.

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