New Jersey Casino Workers Ask State Supreme Court to End Smoking Ban Exemption

Casino workers in New Jersey are again pressing for an end to indoor smoking in Atlantic City’s gaming halls, this time asking the New Jersey Supreme Court to rule whether the state constitution guarantees them a right to a safe workplace. The dispute revolves around the 2006 Smoke-Free Air Act, which established a statewide ban on indoor smoking but included an exception for Atlantic City casinos and simulcasting facilities.

The Court Battle Intensifies

Casino workers, such as dealers and servers, argue that they are forced to endure exposure while nearly every other indoor worker in the Garden State is protected. The latest filing comes from the United Auto Workers, which represents many casino employees. They are joined by the advocacy group Casino Employees Against Smoking Effects (CEASE).

Earlier this year, the New Jersey Appellate Court instructed a trial judge to reexamine specific parts of the case. Still, it refrained from ruling whether the constitution protects a right to safety, saying that the state’s top court should resolve the question. Workers are now asking the Supreme Court to deliver a definitive verdict.

We conclude the trial court erred in accepting at face value the premise that ending the casino smoking exemption would necessarily produce a drastic reduction of casino revenues.

New Jersey Appellate Court

According to workers, lower courts dismissed key constitutional questions and placed undue emphasis on industry-backed economic studies predicting revenue losses if smoking is prohibited on gaming floors. Attorney Nancy Erika Smith, who represents the workers, argued the state constitution clearly states that residents possess the right to safety. In her view, courts made a mistake by treating that language as symbolic rather than enforceable.

Neither Side Is Willing to Back Down

A Supreme Court decision could resolve years of legal disputes. Casinos have long argued that banning smoking indoors would drive customers to neighboring states, leading to revenue losses and job cuts. Workers counter that the current system effectively forces them to choose between their livelihood and their well-being. They remain adamant that economic concerns should not outweigh health protections.

The appeal also questions the legality of the casino smoking ban exemption, arguing that it improperly favors one industry over others. However, lower courts rejected the argument, pointing to constitutional provisions that directly define Atlantic City’s powers to operate casinos. Workers counter that those exemptions do not give gambling venues the right to ignore general health regulations.

During the pandemic, temporary smoking restrictions gave casino staff hope for smoke-free casino floors. However, that reprieve was short-lived despite multiple bills targeting the smoking exemption. If the Supreme Court agrees to hear the case and sides with workers, it could mean an end to the casino smoking exemption. If it declines to review the case, proceedings will continue in the appellate court.