Glantz praised the university for taking a firm position on the case. "The university's vigorous defense of our freedom to do research and disseminate the results to the public and policymakers despite opposition from powerful interests like the tobacco industry demonstrates what a great public institution the University of California is."
Jeffery Speich, the Sacramento attorney who represents the plaintiffs, said Gray's ruling will be appealed.
"The issue raised by this case--whether or not legislative lobbying by the University of California is constitutional--will be decided by the appellate courts of this state," Speich said.
Glantz contends that the suit was the latest industry attempt to make trouble for a nettlesome and outspoken foe. Earlier this year, the National Smokers Alliance, whose primary funding comes from the cigarette industry, petitioned the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration seeking to cancel Glantz's consulting contract with the agency.
In November, Glantz and his co-researcher, Lisa R. Smith, published an expanded version of their 1994 study in the American Journal of Public Health, concluding that restaurants and bars did not lose money as a result of smoking bans. The new study was accompanied by a strongly worded editorial by Mervyn Susser, the journal's editor, defending Glantz's research and lambasting his critics.
The Smokers' Alliance leveled an attack on the second study as well, alleging that it contained "myriad factual errors and misrepresentations."
California law has prohibited smoking in restaurants since 1996. As of Jan. 1, all California bars are supposed to become smoke-free as well.
