Local Government Tag

Home > Posts tagged "Local Government" (Page 5)

Posted 23 Sep 2013 in Case Notes

The Ninth Circuit issued its decision Friday in Pacific Shores Properties, LLC v. City of Newport Beach, No. 11-55460. In the case, plaintiffs alleged that a City ordinance violated the Fair Housing Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, and the Equal Protection Clause because the ordinance had the practical effect of prohibiting new group homes for recovering alcoholics and drug users from opening in most residential districts. Although the district court had granted summary judgment for the City, the Ninth...

Posted 23 Sep 2013 in Monday Morning Review

Here's how local governments fared in the federal courts of appeals during the past week. Second Circuit Velez v. City of New York, No. 12-1965-cv (Sept. 18, 2013) (in a case where a police informant was killed and his representative brought suit against City, finding that district court properly required jury to find a "special relationship" between informant and police, and that no new trial was required). Carver v. Nassau County Interim Finance Authority, No. 13-0801 (Sept. 20, 2013) (in suit challenging wage freeze for County...

Posted 16 Sep 2013 in Monday Morning Review

Here's how local governments fared in the federal courts of appeals during the past week. Eighth Circuit Brian Johnson v. Minneapolis Park, No. 12-2419 (Sept. 11, 2013). Finding that individual seeking to distribute Bibles during festival in public park is likely to prevail in his First Amendment challenge. See our coverage here. Ninth Circuit C.B. v. City of Sonora, No. 11-17454 (Sept. 12, 2013). Remanding for new trial and addressing qualified immunity issue under Fourth Amendment arising out of handcuffing and driving juvenile from school. Sylvia Landfill Trust v. City...

Posted 11 Sep 2013 in Case Notes
[caption id="attachment_89" align="alignright" width="300"]9th Circuit: Landlords do not have a viable constitutional claim against City housing program 9th Circuit: Landlords do not have a viable constitutional claim against City housing program[/caption] Your community’s housing conditions are in crisis. Too many landlords ignore codes. They disregard tenants’ concerns. And their properties are hardly habitable. But they continue to collect rent—from tenants with little capacity to protect themselves. So your local government fashions an innovative program, one that empowers tenants. It allows tenants living in troubled properties to withhold a portion of their rent and to use it for needed repairs. Landlords sue. They claim that your program violates their federal substantive due process rights. Do they have a winning constitutional argument? Not according to the Ninth Circuit, which ruled Monday in Sylvia Landfield Trust v. City of Los Angeles, No. 11-55904, slip op. (Sept. 9, 2013), that the City of Los Angeles’s Rent Escrow Account Program is constitutional.

Posted 19 Aug 2013 in Case Notes
[caption id="attachment_48" align="alignright" width="300"]If you condition a land-use permit on mitigation or other responsibilities, you may have to defend the condition under Koontz. If you condition a land-use permit on mitigation or other responsibilities, you may have to defend the condition under Koontz.[/caption] With the Supreme Court recently concluding its 2012 term, now is a good time to look back. You have likely heard plenty about the Court’s high-profile holdings, including that: But it’s often the decisions that slip by quietly that impact you most. We’ll be publishing a series of posts about decisions that didn’t get a lot of press, but that are worth revisiting.

Posted 19 Aug 2013 in Case Notes
[caption id="attachment_39" align="alignright" width="300"]Build a record to justify your regulations, but resist claims that the evidence has to be beyond dispute. Build a record to justify your regulations, but resist claims that the evidence has to be beyond dispute.[/caption] Crime. Disease. Decreased property values. Adult-oriented businesses are disrupting your community. But you have a plan. You have fashioned a licensing scheme that prohibits nudity and the sale of alcohol at these establishments. You know that courts have allowed zoning regulations that address the “secondary effects” of these businesses. You also know that regulating these businesses can violate the First Amendment. But how closely will a court examine whether your regulations effectively eliminate these adverse effects?

Posted 19 Aug 2013 in Case Notes
[caption id="attachment_33" align="alignright" width="300"]The Supreme Court will evaluate local-government prayer practices this term. The Supreme Court will evaluate local-government prayer practices this term.[/caption] If your community starts its government meetings with a prayer, it might be violating the Constitution. In a case that the Supreme Court will consider in the coming term, Town of Greece v. Galloway, 12-696, the Court will decide whether a local government’s legislative prayer practice runs afoul of the Establishment Clause. The Second Circuit held that the Town of Greece’s prayer practice is unconstitutional because “an objective, reasonable person would believe [it] had the effect of affiliating the town with Christianity.”

Posted 19 Aug 2013 in Case Notes
[caption id="attachment_26" align="alignright" width="224"]Fourth Circuit: a local government can “close” a public forum with a neutral policy, regardless of its intent. Fourth Circuit: a local government can “close” a public forum with a neutral policy, regardless of its intent.[/caption] Your City has flag standards on light poles. They line the City streets. For over 15 years, you have allowed private parties to use this property to place their own flags. Now you have a problem. A group wants to use this City property to fly the Confederate flag during a City parade. The public is fiercely opposed. After your City council first approved the request, it changed course. Its new policy restricts flag-standard use to three flags: the American, State, and City flags. The group sued. It claimed that the City’s change violates its First Amendment rights. Can you successfully defend the City’s policy? In a similar case, the Fourth Circuit recently said yes.