Share 
A New Jersey appeals court has revived a legal challenge to smoking in Atlantic City casinos, sending part of the case back to a lower court and keeping alive a lawsuit that could eventually impact indoor smoking rules on casino floors.
In a decision issued Monday, the Appellate Division ruled that a key constitutional claim was dismissed too early and must be reconsidered, even as it upheld other portions of the trial court’s ruling.
Decision gives plaintiffs another chance to make case
The appeals court did not strike down New Jersey’s casino smoking exemption or order any immediate policy changes. Instead, it remanded the case, meaning it sent it back to the trial court for further proceedings on a specific issue, according to the filing.
The remand focuses on whether the casino exemption in the Smoke-Free Air Act violates the equal protection guarantees of the New Jersey Constitution. The appellate judges said the lower court relied on an incomplete legal framework and failed to adequately develop the factual record before dismissing the claim.
That decision effectively reopens the case and gives plaintiffs another opportunity to argue that casino workers are being treated unfairly compared to employees in other industries where indoor smoking is prohibited.
Background of the smoking challenge
The lawsuit was filed by United Auto Workers Region 9 and CEASE NJ, a casino workers’ health advocacy group. They argue that allowing smoking in casinos exposes workers to health risks that other New Jersey employees are protected from under state law.
New Jersey’s Smoke-Free Air Act generally bans smoking in indoor workplaces but includes an exemption allowing casinos and simulcasting facilities to permit smoking on up to 25% of their gaming floors.
A New Jersey judge ruled against casino workers in August 2024, which led to the appeal.
Ruling favors state arguments
While the remand keeps the lawsuit alive, the appellate court also sided with the state on several issues.
Judges agreed that the New Jersey Constitution does not recognize a standalone “right to safety” and rejected claims that the casino exemption amounts to unconstitutional “special legislation” favoring casinos.
Those rulings limit the scope of the case going forward, leaving equal protection as the central remaining issue.
No immediate impact on casino operations
For now, the decision does not affect smoking policies inside Atlantic City properties. The exemption remains in place while the case returns to the trial court.
Still, by reviving the equal protection claim, the appeals court ensured the legal fight over casino smoking is far from over. The lower court must now take a closer look at the evidence and legal arguments.
That’s a process that could take months and potentially send the case back to the appellate level once again.
