Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03154/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03154-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

________________

No. 05-3154

________________

Adam Steele; Donnis Solberg,

doing business as The Other

Place; Corner Bar of Bemidji,

Inc., a Minnesota Corporation,

doing business as Corner Bar;

Turtle Creek Saloon, Inc., a

Minnesota Corporation, doing

business as Turtle Creek Saloon;

James A. Ness, doing business as

Hillcrest Supper Club,

Appellants,

v.

County of Beltrami, State of

Minnesota; Keith Winger, Sheriff

of the County of Beltrami, State of

Minnesota; Other Unnamed

Persons and Entities,

Appellees.

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

Appeal from the United States

District Court for the 

District of Minnesota.

[UNPUBLISHED]

________________

Submitted: February 15, 2007

 Filed: June 7, 2007

________________

Before LOKEN, Chief Judge, GRUENDER and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

________________

Appellate Case: 05-3154 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/07/2007 Entry ID: 3317131
1

The Honorable Joan N. Ericksen, United States District Judge for the District

of Minnesota. 

-2-

PER CURIAM.

On August 17, 2004, the Beltrami County Board of Commissioners passed the

“Beltrami County Smoke Free Ordinance for Indoor Public Places and Places of

Work” (“the ordinance”). In an effort to protect public health, the ordinance prohibits

smoking in public places and places of work, subject to a few exceptions. The

ordinance took effect on January 1, 2005, with further “phase-in” exceptions to the

prohibition expiring on January 1, 2007. 

On December 29, 2004, Adam Steele, an individual who smokes tobacco

products, and several restaurants and bars (“plaintiffs”) filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983

complaint against Beltrami County, its sheriff and other unidentified parties

(“Beltrami”) in an effort to enjoin the implementation of the ordinance. The plaintiffs

were not represented by counsel. After the district court1

 had denied the plaintiffs’

motion for a temporary restraining order and motion for a preliminary injunction, it

granted Beltrami’s motion for summary judgment, dismissing the plaintiffs’ federal

claims with prejudice and their state claims without prejudice. The plaintiffs appeal,

and we affirm.

The plaintiffs appeal the district court’s summary judgment in favor of Beltrami

with respect to three of their federal claims, which allege that the ordinance violates

their rights under the Fourth, Fifth, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments. “We review

a grant of summary judgment de novo and will affirm if there is no genuine issue of

material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”

Ruminer v. Gen. Motors Corp., 483 F.3d 561, 563 (8th Cir. 2007). 

Appellate Case: 05-3154 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/07/2007 Entry ID: 3317131
-3-

The plaintiffs’ arguments are unpersuasive. In particular, they fail to provide

any sound legal argument or authorities supporting their claimed constitutional rights

to smoke or to control smoking on premises they have opened to the public, and we

decline their invitation to create such rights. Our own research has revealed no

relevant authority supporting these rights under any theory, and several state and

municipal smoking regulations have survived similar challenges under the Fourth,

Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. See, e.g., D.A.B.E., Inc. v. City of Toledo, 393

F.3d 692, 696 (6th Cir. 2005) (holding that appellants failed to establish that an

ordinance regulating smoking in restaurants and bars was a regulatory taking under

the Fifth Amendment); Grusendorf v. City of Oklahoma City, 816 F.2d 539, 542-43

(10th Cir. 1987) (holding that a city regulation prohibiting certain fire department

employees from smoking on or off duty was not irrational or arbitrary under the

Fourteenth Amendment); Players, Inc. v. City of New York, 371 F. Supp. 2d 522, 540-

43 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) (holding that state and municipal smoking bans did not violate a

private social club’s Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights). Indeed, Gasper v.

Louisiana Stadium and Exposition District dealt with litigants urging the creation of

a constitutional right to be free from tobacco smoke in state buildings and held that

it is not a right recognized under the First, Fifth, Ninth or Fourteenth Amendments.

418 F. Supp. 716, 718-22 (E. D. La. 1976), aff’d, 577 F.2d 897, 899 (5th Cir. 1978)

(“[W]e can see no constitutional basis for injecting the courts and their injunctive

powers into this tobacco-smoking controversy.”). We agree with the district court in

Gasper:

[T]he United States Constitution does not provide judicial remedies for

every social and economic ill. For the Constitution to be read to protect

nonsmokers from inhaling tobacco smoke would be to broaden the rights

of the Constitution to limits heretofore unheard of and to engage in that

type of adjustment of individual liberties better left to the people acting

through legislative processes.

Appellate Case: 05-3154 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/07/2007 Entry ID: 3317131
2

We also note that the corporate plaintiffs did not challenge on appeal the

dismissal of their claims for failure to prosecute. However, the sole proprietor

plaintiffs did challenge the district court’s alleged order requiring them to obtain

counsel. Because their claims were not dismissed on this basis and in light of our

decision on the merits of the claims, we do not reach this issue.

-4-

Id. at 722 (emphasis added). These same principles apply with equal force to the

alleged right to smoke or to control smoking in a restaurant or bar. For these reasons

and those set forth by the district court, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.2

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-3154 Page: 4 Date Filed: 06/07/2007 Entry ID: 3317131