Peter Alexander is tired of explaining it.But the question keeps coming up: Why does Indiana need another law school?Alexander is the dean of the newly created law school at Indiana Tech.A federal judge will hear arguments on whether to grant an injunction against Indiana’s smoking ban.
Filed Monday in U.S. District Court, Chief Judge Philip P. Simon ordered a hearing for later this month in the lawsuit filed by American Legion Post 243 in Ligonier.
In their lawsuit, filed in June against the Indiana Alcohol and Tobacco Commission, Indiana Department of Health, and Noble County Prosecutor Steve Clouse, the Legion post asked the federal court to prohibit enforcement of the statewide smoking ban.
The ban has an exemption for non-private clubs, such as the American Legion, but prohibits children from being allowed in the club’s smoking rooms.
The lawsuit argued that the state’s new rule doesn’t prohibit smoking in casinos, so there is no reason to “single out” fraternal clubs.
The defendants would suffer no financial repercussions from delayed enforcement, but enacting the law does cause harm to the plaintiffs, according to court documents.
Last week, attorneys with the Indiana Attorney General’s Office addressed the request for an injunction. They argued the post is, by definition, a public place, and fraternal organizations like the American Legion must take precautions to ensure that smoking does not take place in the presence of children.
They also argued the post cannot assert the smoking ban violates their conscience.
“There is no case law to support the assertion that the constitutional right to freedom of conscience protects the right to smoke in public places,” the state’s attorneys argued in court documents.
The state also filed a motion to dismiss the case.
Attorneys for the American Legion filed additional documents Monday, arguing the case is about government intrusion into their members’ personal lives.
“(T)he members of Post 243 genuinely and respectfully believe that they are upholding and continuing to defend the Constitution and satisfying their stated purpose … through this challenge,” wrote the plaintiffs’ attorneys in court documents.
Judge Simon scheduled a hearing for later this month.
