Atlantic City Casino Workers Push NJ Supreme Court on Smoking Ban

Casino workers and health advocates are asking New Jersey’s highest court to overturn a 18-year-old exemption that allows smoking on 25% of Atlantic City gaming floors. The legal challenge could reshape labor conditions at the shore’s biggest employers and force the industry to confront a rare constitutional showdown over workplace safety.

What Happened

The New Jersey Supreme Court is weighing whether to hear a constitutional challenge to the state’s 2006 Smoke-Free Air Act—specifically the casino exemption that permits designated smoking zones covering up to one-quarter of gaming floor space.

The case was brought by CEASE (Casino Employees Against Smoking Exposure) and the United Auto Workers union, arguing that the smoking carve-out violates workers’ fundamental right to pursue a safe livelihood under the New Jersey Constitution. An appellate court previously found that a lower court had mishandled the initial constitutional challenge, sending the case back into play.

The Supreme Court hasn’t yet decided whether to accept the petition. The court typically reviews fewer than 10% of cases submitted to it, making acceptance far from guaranteed. But the decision to even consider the petition signals the court may see constitutional weight in the workers’ argument.

The Casino Association of New Jersey has pushed back hard, warning that a smoking ban would devastate Atlantic City’s economy and drive customers to competing casinos in Pennsylvania and other states. The association claims the exemption is a competitive necessity and that removing it would trigger significant job losses.

CEASE-commissioned studies paint a different picture, suggesting that revenue could hold steady or even increase under a full smoking ban, pointing to similar transitions at casinos in other jurisdictions.

Why It Matters For Players

If the Supreme Court accepts this case and rules against the casinos, Atlantic City’s gaming environment would change overnight. Smoking would be banned entirely on gaming floors—no exceptions, no designated zones.

For casual players, this likely means cleaner air, less secondhand smoke drift, and a more pleasant experience overall. For regular visitors with respiratory sensitivities, it could be the difference between visiting Atlantic City or staying home.

The flip side: casinos might respond by raising table minimums, cutting back on promotions, or reducing operating hours at certain properties if they believe the ban will cost them money. Some players worry about reduced foot traffic and tighter comps. Whether that actually happens depends entirely on how the market responds—and casinos have proven surprisingly adaptable to smoking restrictions in other markets.

The real question for players is whether Atlantic City remains competitive. If the ban drives enough customers to Pennsylvania’s casinos or online platforms, the properties could consolidate, close, or reduce their game offerings. That’s the economic argument the Casino Association keeps making, and it’s not entirely without merit.

Market Context And Trend Analysis

New Jersey’s 2006 Smoke-Free Air Act was considered groundbreaking when it passed. It banned smoking in most public indoor spaces—restaurants, bars, offices—but carved out the casino exemption as a compromise to protect the Atlantic City gaming industry.

That exemption has become increasingly rare. Las Vegas banned smoking on gaming floors in 2006, the same year New Jersey’s law passed. Nevada casinos adapted. Atlantic City’s five operating casinos—Borgata, Ocean Casino Resort, Golden Nugget, Tropicana, and Hard Rock—have operated under the 25% rule for nearly two decades.

The health data is unambiguous. The CDC estimates that secondhand smoke exposure causes roughly 41,000 deaths annually in the U.S., including 400 deaths from lung cancer among nonsmokers. Casino workers face chronic exposure. A 2019 study by the American Lung Association found that casino workers in states without comprehensive smoking bans had significantly higher rates of respiratory illness compared to workers in states with full bans.

Economically, the picture is murkier. Atlantic City’s casino revenue has been volatile. In 2022, the five casinos generated $3.77 billion in gross gaming revenue, down from $4.4 billion in 2008. Online gaming has cannibalized some brick-and-mortar traffic. A smoking ban is one variable among many—but not the only one.

Other jurisdictions offer clues. When California banned smoking in casinos in 1998, operators predicted catastrophe. Revenue initially dipped but stabilized within two years. Massachusetts casinos operate smoke-free. Connecticut’s Mohegan Sun and Foxwoods both permit smoking in designated areas but have faced pressure to eliminate those zones entirely.

The constitutional angle is novel. Most smoking restrictions are challenged on statutory grounds, not constitutional ones. New Jersey’s Constitution includes language protecting workers’ rights to safe conditions—language that CEASE argues the smoking exemption violates. If the Supreme Court agrees, it could set precedent beyond casinos.

The online casino and gaming Angle

Here’s what matters for the digital gaming space: Atlantic City’s regulatory uncertainty is a feature, not a bug, for online operators.

New Jersey legalized online gambling in 2013, and the state now generates more revenue from digital gaming than from brick-and-mortar casinos. In 2023, online gaming produced $1.66 billion in revenue compared to $3.77 billion from physical properties. That gap is narrowing, and regulatory pressure on Atlantic City casinos—like a smoking ban—could accelerate the shift online.

If a smoking ban drives down foot traffic at physical casinos, those properties lose not just gaming revenue but also hotel stays, food and beverage sales, and retail spending. Players displaced from Atlantic City don’t disappear; many migrate to online platforms. The major operators—DraftKings, FanDuel, BetMGM, Caesars, and others—all have New Jersey licenses and benefit when physical casinos become less attractive.

A Supreme Court decision accepting the case would also signal that New Jersey courts take worker protections seriously, which could influence future regulatory decisions around online gaming labor issues, licensing conditions, and corporate accountability.

For players specifically, the smoking ban debate is a reminder that Atlantic City’s future is contested. The industry isn’t stable or inevitable. It’s subject to legal challenges, worker organizing, and shifting consumer preferences. That volatility creates both risk and opportunity for digital platforms positioned to capture players who might otherwise visit Atlantic City.

Key Takeaways

• The case hinges on constitutional rights, not just health policy. CEASE and the UAW argue the smoking exemption violates New Jersey’s constitutional guarantee of safe working conditions—a legal theory that goes beyond typical smoking regulation arguments.
• The Supreme Court’s decision to consider the petition is not guaranteed. The court accepts fewer than 10% of petitions submitted to it. If it declines, the current exemption remains in place indefinitely.
• Economic impact studies contradict the Casino Association’s predictions. CEASE-commissioned research suggests a smoking ban wouldn’t devastate revenue, while similar transitions in other jurisdictions show mixed but generally manageable outcomes.
• A ban would reshape Atlantic City’s competitive position. Las Vegas, Massachusetts, and other gaming markets operate smoke-free. Atlantic City’s exemption is increasingly an outlier, not a necessity.
• Online gaming stands to gain if physical casinos lose appeal. Regulatory pressure on Atlantic City properties could accelerate the shift toward digital platforms, where smoking is irrelevant.
• Worker organizing is driving the legal challenge, not government mandate. CEASE and the UAW initiated this case, signaling that casino labor is becoming more assertive about working conditions and constitutional protections.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the 25% smoking exemption in New Jersey’s Smoke-Free Air Act?

The 2006 law bans smoking in most public indoor spaces but allows Atlantic City casinos to designate up to 25% of their gaming floor space as smoking areas. This exemption was a compromise to protect the gaming industry when the law passed. No other industry in New Jersey receives a comparable exemption.

Why are casino workers challenging the exemption on constitutional grounds?

CEASE and the UAW argue that the exemption violates workers’ constitutional right to pursue a safe livelihood under the New Jersey Constitution. This is a stronger legal argument than simply claiming the exemption is bad policy, because it frames smoking exposure as a fundamental rights violation rather than a regulatory preference.

What happens if the Supreme Court accepts the case and rules in favor of the workers?

A ruling in favor of CEASE and the UAW would eliminate the smoking exemption entirely, banning smoking on all Atlantic City casino gaming floors. Casinos would need to establish smoke-free policies and enforce them. The economic impact would likely mirror transitions in other markets—initial adjustment followed by stabilization, though some operators might reduce hours or consolidate operations.

The Bottom Line

Atlantic City’s casino industry is facing a rare constitutional showdown that could force it to adapt to standards that most other U.S. gaming markets already meet. The smoking exemption was a compromise born in 2006. Nearly two decades later, that compromise is being challenged by workers who argue it violates their fundamental rights.

The New Jersey Supreme Court hasn’t yet decided whether to hear the case. But the fact that an appellate court sent it back for reconsideration, and that the state’s highest court is weighing whether to accept it, signals that the legal challenge has substance. This isn’t frivolous litigation. It’s a serious constitutional argument with real stakes.

For Atlantic City, a smoking ban would be disruptive but not catastrophic. Other casinos have survived and adapted. For online gaming platforms, regulatory pressure on physical casinos is an opening. And for workers, it’s a reminder that labor organizing can move courts, not just legislatures.