ILNews

Appeals court upholds Indianapolis smoking ban

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals Monday upheld the citywide smoking ban in most Indianapolis bars, denying the injunction request brought by several bar owners who claimed the 2012 ordinance would have a negative impact on their businesses.

The appellate judges noted the bar owners clearly established a negative economic impact as a result of the smoking ban, but a mere loss of future profits is not enough to base a takings claim.

Indianapolis Mayor Greg Ballard signed the ordinance in April 2012 that expanded citywide restrictions against indoor public smoking to include most bars. The ordinance exempts tobacco specialty bars like cigar and hookah bars, retail tobacco stores and private clubs that voted to permit smoking. The group of Indianapolis bar owners sought declaratory and injunctive relief from the ordinance, asserting due process, equal protection, takings and freedom of association claims under the federal and Indiana constitutions.

Chief Judge Richard Young in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana denied the owners’ request for relief.

Smoking is not a fundamental right, the 7th Circuit pointed out, so the ordinance will stand if it passes rational basis scrutiny.

“There are numerous reasons the City may have chosen to limit smoking in enclosed public spaces, and the bar owners have failed to disprove all of them. … [T]he City could have determined that they wanted to limit smoking in public places because it is annoying to nonsmokers, who are not used to inhaling smoke. It could also have reasoned that by banning smoking in public places, it would encourage more smokers to quit, improving health outcomes for more than just those exposed to secondhand smoke. Whatever the City’s reasoning, the bar owners have failed to demonstrate that there is no rational basis on which a law restricting smoking in public places could be based,” Judge Michael Kanne wrote.

The appeals court also rejected the bar owners’ claim that the ordinance denies them equal protection of laws because smoking remains legal in tobacco specialty bars.

“The City thus drew a line between traditional bars, for whom tobacco sales and usage are incidental to their primary business of alcohol and food sales, and tobacco specialty bars, whose business models depend on tobacco sales. The bar owners essentially argue that this line was drawn incorrectly because it does not include their businesses, which also depend significantly upon on-site tobacco usage. But legislation ‘does not violate the Equal Protection Clause merely because the classifications [it makes] are imperfect,’” Kanne wrote, citing Dandridge v. Williams, 397 U.S. 471, 485 (1970).

The bar owners’ claims under the Indiana Constitution also failed.

The case is Wanda Goodpaster, et al v. City of Indianapolis, et al., 13-1629.

 
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Family court judges never fail to surprise me with their irrational thinking. First of all any man who abuses his wife is not fit to be a parent. A man who can't control his anger should not be allowed around his child unsupervised period. Just because he's never been convicted of abusing his child doesn't mean he won't and maybe he hasn't but a man that has such poor judgement and control is not fit to parent without oversight - only a moron would think otherwise. Secondly, why should the mother have to pay? He's the one who made the poor decisions to abuse and he should be the one to pay the price - monetarily and otherwise. Yes it's sad that the little girl may be deprived of her father, but really what kind of father is he - the one that abuses her mother the one that can't even step up and do what's necessary on his own instead the abused mother is to pay for him???? What is this Judge thinking? Another example of how this world rewards bad behavior and punishes those who do right. Way to go Judge - NOT.

  2. Right on. Legalize it. We can take billions away from the drug cartels and help reduce violence in central America and more unwanted illegal immigration all in one fell swoop. cut taxes on the savings from needless incarcerations. On and stop eroding our fourth amendment freedom or whatever's left of it.

  3. "...a switch from crop production to hog production "does not constitute a significant change."??? REALLY?!?! Any judge that cannot see a significant difference between a plant and an animal needs to find another line of work.

  4. Why do so many lawyers get away with lying in court, Jamie Yoak?

  5. Future generations will be amazed that we prosecuted people for possessing a harmless plant. The New York Times came out in favor of legalization in Saturday's edition of the newspaper.

ADVERTISEMENT