Several Fresno smoke shop owners attended a federal hearing Monday, hoping their attorney had the winning argument to stop stricter city regulations.

The California Smoke Shop Association sued the city, arguing that regulations violated constitutionally protected rights such as equal protection. The group sought a preliminary injunction to bar the ordinance — approved by the city council last April.

After an hourlong hearing, federal Judge Kirk Sherriff took the matter under advisement with no immediate ruling.

The new regulations, which went into effect in June, create several health and safety regulations specifically designed for smoke shops. The fact that it does not apply to all tobacco retailers — such as cigar lounges, head shops, or even supermarkets — was the thrust of attorney Shane Smith’s arguments.

“If the issue is we’re trying to protect the public health, the fact that the city is regulating smoke shops and not grocery stores or convenience stores is a part of the equal protection problem,” Smith told Politics 101 after the hearing.

Anthony Taylor, arguing for the city, countered that the regulations are “common sense,” after several smoke shops were cited for violations over the past few years.

Even Sherriff was astonished by the number of shops in violation.

Taylor also said the city has the right to regulate smoke shops, just as they do off-site alcohol sellers.

Smith also argued that citations for selling flavored tobacco — a state violation — were unfairly vague. The court spent considerable time determining how to determine what is flavored tobacco.

This was the second attempt by CSSA to halt the regulations. Sherriff denied a temporary restraining order in June.

Trial Set for 2027

Regardless of Sherriff’s decision on the preliminary injunction, a trial on the regulations is set for Jan. 5, 2027.

City Attorney Andrew Janz appeared alongside Taylor, but declined to comment after the hearing.

Janz did reveal to Politics 101 that of the 44 members of the association, 43 have been cited for an infraction — including selling cannabis and or flavored tobacco. At one location, two guns were found.

That was news to Smith.

“I haven’t seen those documents. I don’t know what that really shows. The city is trying to make the ordinance that any smoke shop, 100% of them, is a cause for concern that there’s going to be violations and we don’t think the evidence shows that,” Smith said.

What wasn’t discussed at the hearing is another aspect of the ordinance — limiting smoke shops to seven for each of the seven city council districts, or 49 in all. That means dozens of smoke shops will go out of business.

Smith said that represents an illegal “taking” and could be argued at a future court date.

Applications for the conditional use permit were due Aug. 27. Janz said only nine shops applied. Existing shops can operate through Dec. 5, 2026.

Judicial Candidate, Hanford Fined by FPPC

The state agency in charge of enforcing campaign finance law said a former judicial candidate broke the law.

Douglas Treisman ran for Fresno County Superior Court judge in 2020, but lost to Elizabeth Egan. An audit of his campaign revealed that Treisman failed to disclose the true source of a $30,000 contribution — his father, Edward Treisman. The transaction was reported on financial documents as a self-loan by Douglas Treisman.

In its case against Treisman, the Fair Political Practices Commission said making a contribution in the name of another “is one of the most serious violations” of state campaign finance law.

“Treisman contends that he was negligent in his reporting and did not intend to conceal information or deceive voters concerning the true source of the loan,” the report said.

The FPPC fined Treisman $4,500, which will be formally voted on by the commission on Sept. 18.

The city of Hanford also violated the Political Reform Act, the FPPC said, when it sent out campaign mailers opposing Measure F, a Kings County tax measure that failed in 2022.

Using public funds to advocate for or against a measure is a violation of the law, the FPPC said. The city also failed to file as a committee or include proper disclosures on the mailer.

The FPPC is recommending an $18,000 penalty.

School Board Raise Bill Advances With Amendments

A proposed state law that would allow school boards to give themselves bigger raises advanced out of committee and next heads to the state Senate floor.

However, changes to AB 1390 means potential raises will not be as large as originally written.

The legislation, authored by Assemblymember Jose Luis Solache, D-Lynwood, initially would allow a $7,500 per month raise, or $90,000 a year for a district the size of Fresno Unified.

That number was knocked down to $4,500 a month, or $54,000 a year.

Fresno Unified board members earn $2,010 a month.

If passed and signed into law, the raise is not automatic. School boards would still have to vote for the raises. The law just increases the amount possible.

The bill continues current law of permissible 5% yearly raises beyond the maximum.