On May 3, 2002, the Michigan Supreme Court ended a five-year legal battle by denying the City of Marquette's application for leave. The City of Marquette filed the application in hopes of overturning a 2001 Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruling. The Supreme Court's refusal to hear the City's appeal MRA, et al v. City of Marquette ends the debate and affirms the MRA's belief that local units of government cannot enact smoking bans in restaurants and bars that differ from state law.
The MRA and five Marquette restaurants sued the City in Marquette Circuit Court over an 1997 ordinance that sought to ban smoking in all restaurants effective January 1, 1999. The suit charged that State law effectively prohibited local units of government from further restricting or banning smoking in foodservice establishments. Section 12905 of the Michigan Public Health Code provides that foodservice establishment may designate a portion of their seating for smoking customers. Section 12915 of the Code clearly prohibits local units of government from enacting ordinances that are more stringent than the provisions of the Code. Marquette Circuit Judge John R. Weber found in favor of the MRA and its member restaurants striking down the City of Marquette's ordinance. Marquette, "has no power to regulate smoking in food service establishment," he wrote in his eight-page opinion.
Following the Circuit Court ruling, the City of Marquette, with the support of several special interest groups, appealed Judge Weber's ruling to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. In April 2001, the Court of Appeals panel consisting of Judges Roman S. Gribbs, Michael J. Kelly and Joel P. Hoekstra upheld the Circuit Court ruling. Writing for the majority, Judge Kelly affirmed that, "the trial court correctly concluded that the ordinance is in direct conflict with a food service establishment's right under MCL 333.12905(2); MSA 14.15(12905)(2) to designate a certain percentage of its seating capacity as seating for smokers.
Judge Hoekstra issued his own opinion concurring with the majority ruling, but disagreeing with some of the findings of the majority opinion. Judge Hoekstra agrees that MCL 333.12915; MSA 14.15(12915), "requires preemption of defendant's smoking ordinance." However, he disagrees with the majority analysis of whether MCL 333.12905(2); MSA 14.15(12905)(2) alone preempts defendant's smoking ordinance. |
