Issues in Kansas City smoking case may come here, anti-ban attorney says
Jonathan Sternberg
Even though the state Supreme Court did not take a case involving Kansas City’s smoking ban in indoor public places, sustaining the ban, the issue in that case could occur in the St. Louis area. This is the view of Jonathan Sternberg, the attorney for the plaintiff in the Kansas City case.
The western district of the Missouri Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the city in the Kansas City case and the state Supreme Court declined to hear it.
“The Eastern (St. Louis) and Southern (Springfield) districts of the courts of appeal could decide differently,” Sternberg said in an email. “Judges are human. They could disagree,” he said in an interview today.
Sternberg specializes in appeals cases. He also represents the Kansas City Business Rights Coalition, which consists of more than 150 bars, restaurants and other businesses and deals with the city on a variety of issues.
“I can assure you that if St. Louis and/or St. Louis County pass smoking ban ordinances, they will face a challenge” on the same basis as the Kansas City one, Sternberg said in the email.
In Kansas City, Georgia J. Carlson of the JC Sports Bar, violated that city’s smoking ban. She argued the state law gives bars an exemption and the city could not prohibit smoking there.
Kansas City Associate Circuit Judge Richard Standridge in January ruled Kansas City could impose stricter requirements. The state law did not prohibit other entities from regulating smoking, he said. The western district of the Missouri Court of Appeals in June agreed. And in August, the state Supreme Court declined to hear the case.
St. Louis, St. Louis County, Clayton and Ballwin, all either having or considering smoking bans, may have different powers relating to smoking bans and different relationships to the state smoking law, Sternberg said.
St. Louis is both a home-rule charter city and a county. St. Louis County is a charter county. Clayton is a charter city and Ballwin in a fourth-class city.
Keep St. Louis Free plans to hire Mr. Sternberg to challenge the constitutionality of the casino exemption of the St. Louis City Smoke Free Air Act of 2009. If successful, we believe the challenge would knock down the smoking ban altogether.
Gee, Bill. Thought you’d be out of money by now. Where can I go to find your association’s contributors? Do you report them? Or are you supporting your anti-smokefree air campaign with personal dollars?
Funding a legal challenge won’t be difficult. So many St. Louis City businesses that want to allow smoking are bigger than 1500 sq. ft. and aren’t casinos.
Love your non-answer answers, Bill.
Sternberg will just as happily take Bill’s money as he did with the Kansas City people. He’ll tell them that they have a great case and a sure winner - all the way to the Missouri Supreme Court. And what do you think the Court will say? I think they’ve already said it - “Appeal rejected.”
Seems like there is a substantial body of case law getting built up - none of it favorable to Bill and his buddies.
Wino, there’s no “substantial body of case law” and the Supreme Court didn’t “reject” anything other than hearing the case on its own. One of the three Mo Court of Appeals districts (Western) did hear the appeal and said that a charter city’s ban on smoking in bars and restaurants doesn’t conflict with state law. The Mo Supreme Court generally doesn’t hear second nonmandatory appeals from the Court of Appeals unless there’s a split between the three districts, and its decision not to transfer the case is “of no precedential value”. When reviewing the KC case last July, the Mo Municipal League (a proponent of smoking bans) commented that it was very close, and urged “caution in the Eastern and Southern Districts because a strong argument can be made that the [smoking ban] ordinance prohibits what the state permits.” http://www.mocities.com/MMAA%20Newsletters/MMAANewsletter.July.2009.htm
If smoking bans are passed in the St. Louis area, Bill SHOULD challenge them! The State says that bars “are not considered a public place” for smoking purposes as long as they post a sign stating “nonsmoking areas are unavailable.” A smoking ban ordinance says that they’re prohibied from posting any sign except “no smoking.” That’s BS… the state allows them to allow smoking indoors, and thus a city doesn’t have the right to prohibit that. The Court of Appeals in KC was wrong, and the Court of Appeals in StL could decide differently.
Tom, I am furious with the casinos for cutting a deal for themselves and not doing a thing to help local mom and pop businesses. Perhaps local business groups and public health groups can join together to challenge that unfair exemption.
The suit will fail. You losers should be sanctioned for bringing frivolous suits and appeals.
Many groups could join together to challenge the casino exemption.
The ban in Kirkwood covers not only “public places” but “enclosed places of employment”. An “enclosed place of employment” is defined as all spaces where an employee might go that is bound on all sides by walls or windows AND IS ENCLOSED BY DOORS.
WHAT A LOOPHOLE. OPEN THE DOORS AND LIGHT IT UP.