Did Connecticut’s 2003 workplace smoking ban apply inside tribal casinos?

Plain-English summary

In 2003, a Connecticut senator asked whether the new workplace smoking restriction applied at Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun. The AG concluded that casinos with a valid casino liquor permit were excluded from that ban. He also found that the gaming agreements' health and safety provisions did not require a different outcome because they measured tribal standards against the state's own standards, which contained the casino exception.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2003. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Casino operators and tribal officials at the time

The opinion's conclusion depended on operation under a valid casino liquor permit. It did not say tribes were barred from adopting stricter smoking rules voluntarily.

Legislators and public health officials at the time

The AG read the permit list in the smoking law as excluding the special casino permit. He treated the compact health requirement as matching the reach of state standards rather than expanding the state ban into excluded premises.

Common questions

Q: Did the 2003 smoking ban cover casinos with casino liquor permits?
A: No. The AG said those casino premises were outside the permit categories covered by the act.

Q: Did the gaming compacts independently require a casino smoking ban?
A: No. Their health provision required standards no less rigorous than state standards, and state law had excluded these casino premises.

Q: Could a tribe choose a stricter rule?
A: Yes. The opinion noted that tribes could impose more restrictive health and safety measures.

Background and statutory framework

Public Act No. 03-45 restricted smoking in many public and work places, but omitted the special casino permit category. Conn. Gen. Stat. § 30-37k governed that permit. The AG compared the statute with the gaming agreements' Section 14 health and safety language and concluded the agreements did not restore a smoking ban the state law had excluded.

Citations and references

Statutes cited in the opinion: Public Act No. 03-45; Conn. Gen. Stat. § 30-37k.

Source

• Landing page: https://portal.ct.gov/AG/Opinions
• Opinion page: https://portal.ct.gov/ag/opinions/2003-formal-opinions/the-honorable-louis-c-deluca-legislative-office-building-2003017-formal-opinion-attorney-general-of

Original opinion text

The Honorable Louis C. DeLuca, Legislative Office Building, 2003-017 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut

Attorney General's Opinion

Attorney General, Richard Blumenthal

October 1, 2003

The Honorable Louis C. DeLuca

Senate Republican Leader

Suite 3400

Legislative Office Building

Hartford, CT 06106-1591

Dear Senator DeLuca:

You have asked for a formal opinion as to whether Public Act No. 03-45, An Act Concerning Secondhand Smoke in Work Places, applies to Foxwoods and the Mohegan Sun casinos. In particular, you ask whether section 14 of the gaming compacts,1 which requires the Mashantucket Pequot and Mohegan Tribes to adopt health and safety standards that are at least as rigorous as the State's health and safety laws, requires application of the smoking ban to the Tribes' gaming facilities. We conclude that Public Act No. 03-45 expressly excludes casinos with casino liquor permits from the smoking ban, and that section 14 of the gaming compacts does not require a different result.

Pursuant to Public Act No. 03-45, smoking is prohibited in most places of employment and most places open to the public, including restaurants and bars where alcohol is served. The legislation was clearly intended to protect employees and the public from the well-documented and detrimental health effects of secondhand smoke.

Public Act No. 03-45 specifically applies to bars, cafes, restaurants and other establishments that sell alcoholic beverages pursuant to a permit issued by the Department of Consumer Protection under specified subsections of Title 30 of the General Statutes.2 Public Act No. 03-45, § 1(b)(1)(E). Conn. Gen. Stat. § 30-37k authorizes a special liquor permit exclusively for casinos, and this particular statutory section was excluded from the enumerated list of permits subject to the smoking ban. Thus, as long as the casinos operate under a valid casino liquor permit issued pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat.§ 30-37k, the casino premises are not subject to the smoking ban.3 We understand that the Mohegan Tribe operates the Mohegan Sun under a casino permit and that the Mashantucket Pequot Tribe has applied for a casino permit for Foxwoods, and is presently operating under a temporary casino permit pending action on its permit application.

The fact that the gaming compacts with the Tribes include a provision governing health and safety matters does not change the outcome of our opinion. The gaming compacts contain identical provisions concerning the applicability of the State's health and safety standards to the Tribes' gaming facilities. Section 14 of the compacts provides:

Tribal ordinances and regulations governing health and safety standards applicable to the gaming facilities shall be no less rigorous than standards generally imposed by the laws and regulations of the State relating to public facilities with regard to building, sanitary, and health standards and fire safety.
Section 14 requires the Tribes to adopt and impose health and safety laws that are at least as rigorous as the State's health and safety standards.4 The phrase "health and safety standards" is not specifically defined in the compacts, but, by its terms, applies broadly to include all of the State's health and safety laws. The smoking ban legislation involves an obvious and important health issue, and therefore, implicates application of section 14 of the compacts.

Thus, under section 14 of the gaming compacts, the Tribes are required to adopt health and safety standards that are as restrictive as the State's standards. In enacting Public Act No. 03-45, the Legislature chose to exclude casino premises operating under a casino liquor permit from the smoking ban. Since the State does not ban smoking in casinos operating under a casino permit, section 14 of the compacts does not require the Tribes to ban smoking in their casino premises.

Accordingly, as long as the Tribes operate the casinos under a valid casino liquor permit pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. §30-37k, state law does not require them to prohibit patrons from smoking on the casino premises. I trust that this letter responds to your question.

Very truly yours,

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL

ATTORNEY GENERAL

1The document that governs the Mashantucket Pequot Tribe's gaming operations is not technically a "gaming compact" but rather "federal procedures" that were imposed on the State by the Secretary of Interior under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. Because that distinction has no relevance to this opinion, and the health and safety provisions of the two gaming documents are identical, for ease of reference, we refer to both documents as "gaming compacts."

2The statutory subsections specified in Public Act No. 03-45(b)(1)(E) are: sections 30-20a, 30-21, 30-21b, 30-22, 30-22c, 30-28, 30-28a, 30-33a, 30-33b, 30-35a, 30-37a, 30-37c, 30-37e, 30-37f, 30-23, and after April 1, 2004, 30-22a and 30-26.

3"Casino" is defined in the statute as "the premises within which a gaming facility is operated with other facilities, including, but not limited to, restaurants, hotels, nightclubs, bingo halls or convention centers." Conn. Gen. Stat. §30-37k(a)(1).

4Tribes may impose more restrictive health and safety measures, if they choose to do so.