|
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br /> No Constitutional Right to Smoke
<br />
<br /> 9 See U.S. CONST. amend. I.
<br /> 10 See id.
<br /> 11 See U.S. CoNST. amends. V, XIV.
<br /> 12 See U.S. CoNST. amend. XIV.
<br /> 13 See U.S. CoNST. amends. V, XIV.
<br /> 16 See U.S. CONST. amend. XIV.
<br /> 16 See U.S. CoNST. amends. V, XIV.
<br /> 16 See John E. Nowak & Ronald D. Rotunda, CONSTITUTIONAL LAw 453 (7th ed. 2004).
<br /> 1' See id.
<br /> 16 See Griswold v Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 485-86 (1964).
<br /> 19 See, e.g., id. at 465-86 (recognizing the right of married couples to use contraceptives); Meyers v. Nebraska, 262
<br /> U.S. 390 (1923) (recognizing the right of parents to educate children as they see fit), and Moore v East Cleveland,
<br /> 431 U.S. 494 (1977) (protecting the sanctity of family relationships).
<br /> 30 Fagan v. Axelrod, 550 N.Y.S.2d 552, 559 (1990) (internal citations omitted).
<br /> 21 See, e.g., San Juan-Torregosa v Garcia, 80 S.W.3d 539 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002) ("[T]he citizens of our state are af-
<br /> forded a greater right of privacy by the Tennessee Constitution than that provided in the Federal Constitution...."),
<br /> City of North Miami v. Kurtz, 653 So.2d 1025 (Fla. 1995) (discussed below).
<br /> 22 Grusendorf v City of Oklahoma City, 816 F.2d 539 (10th Cir. 1987).
<br /> 23 See id. at 540.
<br /> 21 to. at 541.
<br /> 26 See id. at 542. The court relied heavily on the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Kelley v Johnson, 425 U.S. 238
<br /> (1976), in which the Court upheld a regulation regarding the style and length of hair, sideburns, and mustaches of
<br /> male police officers.
<br /> 26 See City of North Miami v. Kurtz, 653 So.2d 1025 (Fla. 1995).
<br /> 2' See id. at 1026.
<br /> 26 See id.
<br /> 29 Id. at 1028.
<br /> 30 See id.
<br /> 31 See In re Julie Anne, 780 N.E.2d 635, 659 (Ohio Com. PI. 2002).
<br /> 31 Id. at 656.
<br /> U.S. CONST. amend. XIV.
<br /> 34 See John E. Nowak & Ronald D. Rotunda, CONSTITUTIONAL LAw 453 (7th ed. 2004).
<br /> 36 See, e.g., Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954) (addressing race); Sugarman v. Dougall, 413 U.S.
<br /> 634 (1973) (addressing national origin); Craig v. Boran, 429 U.S. 190 (1976) (addressing gender). These groups
<br /> share "an immutable characteristic determined solely by the accident of birth," Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 U.S.
<br /> 677, 686 (1973), and often, a "history of purposeful unequal treatment" by the government. Massachusetts Board
<br /> of Retirement v. Murgia, 427 U.S. 307, 313 (1976). Note that some groups that arguably are defined by an immu-
<br /> table characteristic and a history of purposeful unequal treatment do not receive special protection under the U.S.
<br /> Constitution. For example, groups based upon age and mental disability do not receive any special protections.
<br /> See, e.g., Kimel v. Florida Bd. of Regents, 528 U.S. 62 (2000) (addressing age); City of Cleburne v Cleburne Living
<br /> Center, Inc., 473 U.S. 432 (1985) (addressing mental disability).
<br /> 16 Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 U.S. 677, 686 (1973).
<br /> 37 The Equal Protection Clause not only protects certain groups of people but also protects certain rights that inher-
<br /> ently require equal treatment. Smoking is not one of these recognized rights. The rights specially protected by the
<br /> Equal Protection Clause include the right to vote, the right to be a political candidate, the right to have access to
<br /> the courts for certain kinds of proceedings, and the right to travel interstate. See, e.g., Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186
<br /> (1962) (holding that improper congressional redistricting violates voters' equal protection rights); Turner v. Fouche,
<br /> 396 U.S. 346 (1970) (holding that all persons have a constitutional right to be considered for public service), Shap-
<br /> iro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969) (striking down a residency requirement for the receipt of state benefits as an
<br /> equal protection violation).
<br /> 36 Note that nonsmokers also are not recognized as a specially protected category of people, so equal protection
<br /> claims brought by nonsmokers who are exposed to smoke in a place where smoking is permitted by law are un-
<br /> likely to succeed if there is a rational basis for the law.
<br /> 39 NYC C.L.A.S.H., Inc. v. New York, 315 F. Supp. 2d 461 (S.D.N.Y. 2004).
<br /> 8
<br />
|