High Court Declines to Review Smoking Ban in Beverly Hills

The state Supreme Court on Wednesday rejected a challenge to a hotly contested Beverly Hills ordinance imposing the strictest limitations yet enacted in California on smoking in restaurants and other public places.

The justices, in a brief order with no dissent, refused to hear claims by attorneys for the Beverly Hills Restaurant Assn. that the city’s ban on smoking in most eating establishments is unconstitutional because it unfairly exempts restaurants located in hotels.

The measure, the association said, effectively gives hotel restaurants a monopoly on the right to serve smokers in the city, discriminating against other establishments.

The high court’s action upheld the earlier refusal by a Los Angeles Superior Court judge to issue a preliminary injunction to prevent the ordinance from going into effect April 3.

The association had taken its case directly to the justices, asking them to take the unusual step of intervening in the dispute without waiting for the case to first go for review before the state Court of Appeal.

Immediate intervention was justified because the ordinance was causing the restaurant owners “severe economic losses,” in addition to their loss of the constitutional rights of equal protection and due process of law, the restaurant association argued.

Vincent M. Waldman, an attorney for the restaurant owners, expressed disappointment with the justices’ refusal to hear the case.

Waldman said restaurant business has been “down substantially” in Beverly Hills, with some establishments reporting losses of up to one-third of their business since the measure took effect.

Mitchell E. Abbott, an attorney for the city, said he was “gratified” by the court’s refusal to intervene. “The ordinance is in effect, being enforced and from what I understand, is being widely accepted,” he said.

The justices’ action allows the ordinance to remain in effect while the association pursues two other challenges now pending in lower courts that eventually could reach the Supreme Court.

The group is contending, among other things, that the ordinance improperly interferes with “personal autonomy” and that the City Council violated state law by failing to submit the measure for review by environmental authorities.

Lawyers for the city say the ordinance is a legitimate attempt to protect the health of residents and visitors to Beverly Hills and that there is nothing unconstitutional in singling out certain kinds of restaurants in a “step-by-step” effort to combat the dangers of smoking.

The controversial ordinance prohibits smoking in indoor restaurants but exempts bars, lounges, private banquet rooms and restaurants in hotels. Restaurant owners are required to post signs prohibiting smoking in dining areas.

Violators, including both smokers and restaurant owners who allow smoking in their establishments, are subject to fines of up to $500.