Published on: January 27, 2026, 11:10 AM.
Updated on: January 27, 2026, 11:36 AM.
- The New Jersey Superior Court has been instructed to reassess a lawsuit questioning casino smoking regulations in Atlantic City
- A state appellate court identified procedural missteps made by a judge in delivering his verdict
Casinos in Atlantic City may allocate up to 25% of their gaming space for smoking. A New Jersey appellate court has mandated a lower judicial body to revisit a lawsuit claiming this smoking policy infringes on individual rights protected by the state Constitution.
In August 2024, New Jersey Superior Court Judge Patrick Bartels supported the state’s stance that exemptions for casinos and parimutuel betting facilities under the 2006 Smoke-Free Air Act do not violate an individual’s right to work in smoke-free environments. This week, a panel of three judges found procedural shortcomings in Judge Bartels’ decision-making process.
The appellate court criticized Judge Bartels for not sufficiently weighing conflicting evidence from the casinos and the United Auto Workers (UAW) union, which presented differing views on the effects of a smoking prohibition on the gaming sector.
The casinos contend that imposing a smoking ban would significantly harm the industry and lead to mass unemployment. Conversely, the UAW and Casino Employees Against Smoking Effects (CEASE) argue that tobacco use is becoming less relevant as smoking rates drop.
Ongoing Legal Proceedings
Judge Bartels maintained that allowing smoking in casinos does not infringe on a person’s constitutional right to find employment in smoke-free venues.
“Given the well-known hazards of secondhand smoke, the fact that smoking has only been prohibited in casinos briefly during COVID-19, and that the Smoke-Free Air Act’s exceptions impact a few sectors, it cannot be claimed that the New Jersey Legislature’s provisions in the Smoke-Free Air Act limit casino workers’ rights to safety under the New Jersey Constitution,” Bartels noted.
The appellate court, led by Judge Jack Sabatino, has sent the case back for additional examination.
The court will allow for the full development and litigation of the record to address the disputed estimates of revenue losses, enabling the court to establish fact findings about the credibility of the differing expert assessments. These determinations are essential to the resolution of the plaintiffs’ state equal protection claims, especially considering the health of numerous casino workers and potentially millions of dollars in financial implications,” Sabatino stated.
However, Judge Sabatino emphasized that this appellate decision should not be interpreted as a directive on public policy matters.
“We exercise caution in this approach, and do not take it lightly. We do not seek to impose our judgment on public policy matters, which remains the prerogative of the Legislature and the Governor. Our duty is to ensure equal protection under the laws of our state while rectifying the trial court’s erroneous application of the constitutional framework,” Sabatino elaborated.
‘Unique’ Circumstances
Sabatino indicated that the appellate ruling should not be taken to imply that trial judges should regularly permit discovery and conduct evidentiary hearings whenever an equal protection issue arises. In this particular case, however, the situation is “unique.”
“This is a unique case with significant stakes,” Sabatino remarked. “We do not suggest any particular outcome upon remand.”
New Jersey Governor Mikie Sherrill (D), who assumed office on January 20, has indicated support for legislation to end smoking in casinos if it is presented to her.