Frat. Order of Eagles v. Borough of Juneau
2011 Alas. LEXIS 57
| Alaska | 2011Background
- City of Juneau amended anti-smoking code in 2008 to ban smoking in private clubs that offer food or alcohol for sale.
- Aerie 4200 is a private non-profit club with liquor license; facility operated as a social/commercial enterprise.
- Club rules create privacy expectations; facility opened to the public for fundraising events four times a year.
- Aerie 4200 and members sued, asserting First Amendment freedom of association and Alaska privacy right; case proceeding on summary judgment.
- Superior Court granted summary judgment for City on both federal association and Alaska privacy claims; Eagles appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the private-club smoking ban implicate First Amendment freedom of association? | Eagles: intimate association protected; private-club context affects member relations. | City: ban regulates conduct in private clubs, not membership or intimate associations. | No, ban is conduct-based and does not implicate First Amendment association rights. |
| Does the ban violate Alaska Constitution privacy, article I, section 22? | Eagles: Aerie is an extension of home; smoking is a private autonomy right. | Facility is not a home; smoking is not a fundamental right; regulation is permissible. | No fundamental privacy right to ingest tobacco; no home-like privacy violation. |
| Is there a fundamental privacy right to privacy in the home extended to private clubs? | Ravin-like reasoning should apply to home privacy extended to clubs. | Home privacy does not extend to non-home, commercial club setting. | Ravin-based home privacy does not apply to Aerie; not a home context. |
| Is the ban closely and substantially related to protecting public health? | Eagles: admissions of members and private/public access dilute public-health link. | Second-hand smoke harms non-smokers; regulation in places selling food/alcohol is closely related to public health. | Yes; ban bears a close and substantial relationship to protecting public health. |
Key Cases Cited
- Roberts v. U.S. Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609 (U.S. 1984) (recognizes two forms of association rights and limits on state interference)
- Ravin v. State, 537 P.2d 494 (Alaska 1975) (home privacy protects ingestion/possession of certain substances; limited to home)
- Sampson v. State, 31 P.3d 88 (Alaska 2001) (privacy does not shield certain conduct; health/safety interests prevail)
- State v. Erickson, 574 P.2d 1 (Alaska 1978) (no absolute privacy right to engage in conduct that harms self or others)
- American Lithuanian Naturalization Club v. Bd. of Health of Athol, 446 Mass. 310, 844 N.E.2d 231 (Mass. 2006) (state rationally regulates private clubs to protect health from second-hand smoke)