"We were forced to seek legal counsel," Khoury said. "It's not something we want."
The lawsuit is the culmination of a monthslong battle between the city and sellers of flavored tobacco — mainly Khoury, who, along with his wife and shop co-owner, Lori Khoury, has urged the council on many occasions to reconsider the city's ban on vaping devices and flavored tobacco.
The ban was prompted by concerns over high school students' increasing use of vaping products, including flavored nicotine cartridges. Though the restriction aimed to curb youth smoking, a slew of health advocates and parents requested the City Council not make any exceptions for adult-only stores or any flavored tobacco.
In May, the council voted 4-3 in favor of the ban on both products without including exemptions for either adult-only stores such as Mac's Smoke Shop or flavored tobacco products that aren't necessarily used with vaping devices and electronic cigarettes such as cigars, chewing tobacco, paper cigarettes, etc. The ban was reaffirmed in June and approved in a second reading on Aug. 3.
As a result, the ban directly impacts retailers like Mac's but not tobacco stores such as Hemingway Cigars and Tobacco on University Avenue, which does not sell flavored tobacco.
Khoury has said before that he is willing to comply with the ban on vaping devices but pleaded with the council not to ban all flavored tobacco products. Doing so would put Mac's out of business, he said, since flavored tobacco makes up around 70% of the store's sales. (In addition to flavored cigars and chewing tobacco, Mac's sells its own blend of flavored pipe tobacco.)
With the ban, Khoury said he was given until the end of August to clear out his store of vaping and flavored tobacco items.
"We feel that we've been targeted," Khoury said. "Being called a smoke shop, I guess we don't fit the new Palo Alto look. I guarantee you Mac's has been there longer than anybody (on the council) who voted on it in Palo Alto."
Part of the lawsuit claims the city violated the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, which essentially states that owners of private property are entitled to "just compensation" whenever a government body, like a city council, confiscates that property. The lawsuit equates the city's new ban to the taking of property without proper compensation.
The lawsuit also states the city's ordinance causes financial hardship and "irreparable harm" to the retail owners' constitutional rights as U.S. and state citizens to conduct lawful businesses.
"Mohammad Hammad, who operates Raw Smoke Shop, will have his income significantly reduced to the point where he will have to close his business, but he will still owe over $264,000 in rent pursuant to his lease agreement," the lawsuit claims. "The city's new ordinance will permanently shut down the plaintiffs' businesses and cause extreme financial hardship as the plaintiffs' must still pay rent, utilities, wages, insurance, etc."
The lawsuit requests that a judge declare the city's ordinance void and restrain the city from enforcing the ban until the court "decides the merits of this lawsuit."
City Attorney Molly Stump said the city does not comment on pending litigation.
David Finkelstein, the attorney representing the four business owners, did not return requests for comment in time before the story was published.
With the new restrictions, Palo Alto is following in the footsteps of other jurisdictions that had also moved to ban vaping and flavored tobacco, including San Francisco, Santa Clara and San Mateo County. In other parts of the country, such restrictions have similarly attracted lawsuits.
Last year, in Arden Hills — a small city north of St. Paul, Minnesota — tobacco shop owner Ibrahim Aquel similarly sued the city council for banning flavored tobacco without providing any exemptions for adult-only stores, according to St. Paul Pioneer Press. The attorney accused the council for targeting Aquel's store.
More recently, three tobacco companies filed a lawsuit in June against Los Angeles County, the county's Board of Supervisors and individual members of the board for their flavored tobacco ordinance that was passed in September 2019, calling it "one of the most draconian bans on tobacco products of any county in the nation."
This story contains 787 words.
Stories older than 90 days are available only to subscribing members. Please help sustain quality local journalism by becoming a subscribing member today.
If you are already a subscriber, please log in so you can continue to enjoy unlimited access to stories and archives. Subscriptions start at $5 per month and may be cancelled at any time.