Appeals Court Revives NJ Casino Smoking Ban Challenge

The seemingly never-ending legal battle over smoking on casino floors in New Jersey has headed back to square one following the recent ruling of a state appeals court that decided a lower court mishandled the case.

Procedural Flaws 

On January 26, 2026, an appellate panel asked a trial court to reopen proceedings meant to decide if the state’s indoor smoking ban exempts casinos in an unfair manner, going against the New Jersey Constitution. 

The judges said the earlier ruling suffered from procedural flaws that prevented a proper and balanced hearing.

At the center of the dispute is the 2006 Smoke-Free Air Act, which bans indoor smoking across the Garden State, but offers an exception for casinos and simulcasting facilities. 

Casino floor workers, represented by the United Auto Workers union, have spent years trying to eliminate that exemption, arguing that it endangers their health.

In 2024, a lower court judge finally decided to throw out the union’s lawsuit, a decision that, according to the appeals court, relied too much on written briefs while skipping important steps, such as hearing testimony and making detailed factual findings. 

“Such findings are especially crucial to the ultimate disposition of plaintiffs’ state equal protection arguments, with the health of thousands of casino employees and, perhaps, millions of dollars at stake,” Judge Jack Sabatino wrote for the three-judge panel.

Ongoing Efforts

Casino workers turned to the courts after repeated legislative efforts to close the loophole didn’t lead anywhere, with lawmakers continuing to address concerns regarding the potential financial impact of a full smoking ban on Atlantic City casinos.

The workers argue that the law basically forces them to endure secondhand smoke while other indoor workers are protected.

The trial court had rejected those claims and accepted the idea that workers exposed to smoke could simply seek other jobs and that casino revenue depended on keeping smoking on the floor.

The appeals court did not agree with the way that conclusion was reached, saying the judge applied the wrong legal test, relying on a basic rational-basis review instead of the more demanding three-part balancing test required under New Jersey’s equal protection framework.

The panel also faulted the trial court for relying almost entirely on a casino-backed study that predicted serious revenue losses if smoking were banned, while giving little weight to a study showing similar performance between smoking and non-smoking casinos.

The appeals court stopped short of ruling on whether the state constitution guarantees a right to safety, saying that question should be decided at a higher level.

“If such a sweeping right is recognized for the first time, it should be by the Supreme Court as the ultimate arbiter of our State Constitution,” Sabatino said.

The case now returns to the lower court, where it will finally get the full hearing the appeals panel said it deserved.