CNCounty News

Supreme Court rules in seven significant cases for counties

Image of shutterstock_184818761.jpg
  • The U.S. Supreme Court issued decisions on seven cases of particular interest to county governments

That same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry and an intact Affordable Care Act will forever outshine every other deci­sion from this Supreme Court term. But local governments will ignore the rest of this term at their peril.

The court issued many decisions affecting local governments — most of which had unfavorable out­comes. From upsetting sign codes to allowing disparate treatment claims under the Fair Housing Act, this was a term for local governments to remember too. Following is a summary of the top seven cases.

Content-Based Sign Codes Unconstitutional


In Reed v. Town of Gilbert, the court held unanimously that Gilbert’s sign code, which treated various categories of signs differ­ently based on the information they conveyed, violates the First Amendment.

Gilbert’s sign code treated temporary directional signs less favorably (in terms of size, location, duration, etc.) than political signs and ideological signs. Content-based laws are only constitutional if they pass strict scrutiny — that is, if they are narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest.

While the State and Local Legal Center (SLLC) argued in its amicus brief that Gilbert’s sign categories are based on function, the court concluded they are based on content.

Gilbert’s sign code failed strict scrutiny because its two asserted compelling interests — preserving aesthetic and traffic safety — were “hopelessly underinclusive,” the decision read. Temporary direc­tional signs are “no greater an eyesore” and pose no greater threat to public safety than ideological or political signs.

Many, if not most communi­ties like Gilbert, regulate some categories of signs in a way the Supreme Court has defined as content-based. Communities will need to change these ordinances.

Hotel Registry Searches Need Subpoenas

In City of Los Angeles v. Patel, the court held 5–4 that a Los Angeles ordinance requiring hotel and motel operators to make their guest registries available for police inspection without at least a subpoena violates the Fourth Amendment.

The purpose of hotel registry ordinances is to deter crime — drug dealing, prostitution and human trafficking — on the theory that criminals will not commit crimes in hotels if they have to provide identifying information.

According to the court, searches permitted by the city’s ordinance are done to ensure compliance with recordkeeping requirements. While such administrative searches do not require warrants, they do require “pre-compliance review before a neutral decision maker.” Absent at least a subpoena, “the ordinance creates an intolerable risk that searches authorized by it will exceed statutory limits, or be used as a pretext to harass hotel operators and their guests.”

In his dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia cited the SLLC’s amicus brief, which notes that local gov­ernments in at least 41 states have adopted similar ordinances. Eight states also have hotel registry statutes: Indiana, Florida, Massa­chusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Wisconsin, and the District of Columbia.

It is likely following this decision that other record inspections done by governments outside the hotel registry context will also require subpoenas.

Fair Housing Act Disparate Impact Claims Recognized

In Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project, the justices held 5–4 that disparate-impact claims may be brought under the Fair Housing Act (FHA).

In a disparate-impact case, a plain­tiff claimed that a particular practice wasn’t intentionally discriminatory but instead had a disproportionately adverse impact on a particular group.

The Inclusive Communities Project claimed the Texas housing department’s selection criteria for federal low-income tax credits in Dallas had a disparate impact on minorities.

In prior cases, the court held that disparate-impact claims are possible under Title VII (prohibiting race, etc. discrimination in employment) and under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, relying on the statutes’ “otherwise adversely affect” language. The FHA uses similar language — “otherwise make unavailable” — in prohibiting race, etc. discrimination in housing.

This decision more or less con­tinues the status quo for local governments. Nine federal circuit courts of appeals had previously reached the same conclusion. But, Justice Anthony Kennedy’s majority opinion contains a number of limits on when and how disparate-impact housing claims may be brought.

Reasons for Cell Tower Denials Must Be in Writing


In T-Mobile South v. City of Roswell, the court held 6–3 that the Telecom­munications Act (TCA) requires local governments to provide reasons when denying an application to build a cellphone tower.

The reasons do not have to be stated in the denial letter but must be articulated “with sufficient clarity in some other written record issued essentially contemporaneously with the denial,” which can include council meeting minutes.

The TCA requires that a local government’s decision denying a cell tower construction permit be “in writing and supported by substantial evidence contained in a written record.”

Local governments must provide reasons for why they are denying a cell tower application so that courts can determine whether the denial was supported by substantial evidence. Council meeting minutes are sufficient. But, because wireless providers have only 30 days after a denial to sue, minutes must be issued at the same time as the denial.

Following this decision, local governments should not issue any written denial of a wireless siting application until they 1) set forth the reasons for the denial in that written decision; or 2) make available to the wireless provider the final council meeting minutes or transcript of the meeting.

No Dog Sniffing Allowed


In a 6–3 decision in Rodriguez v. United States, the court held that a dog sniff conducted after a com­pleted traffic stop violates the Fourth Amendment.

In a 2005 decision, Illinois v. Caballes, the court upheld a dog search conducted during a lawful traffic stop stating that a seizure for a traffic stop “become[s] unlawful if it is prolonged beyond the time reasonably required to complete the mission” of issuing a ticket for the violation. Officers may lengthen stops to make sure vehicles are operating safely or for an officer’s safety. A dog sniff, however, is aimed at discovering illegal drugs not at officer or highway safety.

Justice Samuel Alito’s dissent suggests savvy police officers can skirt the court’s ruling by learning “the prescribed sequence of events even if they cannot fathom the reason for that requirement.”

New Standard for Pretrial Excessive Force Claims


In Kingsley v. Hendrickson, the court decided that to prove an excessive force claim a pretrial detainee must only show that the officer’s force was objectively unreasonable. He does not need to show that the officers were subjectively aware that their use of force was unreasonable.

Tax on Internet Purchases

To improve its tax collection, the state of Colorado began requiring remote sellers to inform Colorado purchasers annually of their pur­chases and send the same informa­tion to the Colorado Department of Revenue

The Direct Marketing Asso­ciation sued Colorado in federal court claiming that the notice and reporting requirements are uncon­stitutional under Quill Corp. v. North Dakota Quill. In a 1992 decision, the court held that a business had to be physically present in a state before the state could require it to collect use or sales taxes.

In Direct Marketing Association v. Brohl, the question the court was asked to decide was whether this case could be heard in federal court (as opposed to state court). The court held “yes” unanimously.

More significantly however, Justice Kennedy wrote a concurring opinion stating that the “legal system should find an appropriate case for this court to reexamine Quill.” Many court watchers interpreted his statement as skepticism about whether Quill should remain the law of the land.

 

Attachments

Related News

Image of GettyImages-182666077.jpg
Advocacy

Congressionally Directed Spending for Fiscal Year 2025: How counties can navigate the earmarks process

Congress has begun the Fiscal Year 2025 appropriations cycle. Formal guidance has not been issued by the U.S. House and Senate Appropriations Committees regarding Congressionally Directed Spending. 

El Paso border station
Press Release

County Leaders Visit U.S. Border to Examine Best Practices for Local Governments

National Association of Counties Immigration Reform Task Force and other county leaders tour El Paso County, Texas.

Man at call center
Advocacy

FCC takes critical steps to improve the 988 National Suicide Lifeline

On March 21, bipartisan congressional leaders and FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel announced steps to improve the 988 National Suicide Lifeline. This announcement marks major progress on the nation’s crisis response, a priority for counties and a key policy pillar of the NACo Commission on Mental Health and Wellbeing.