Limiting Localized Travel and Association: Sixth Circuit Affirms Inconstitutionality of Cincinnati's Drug-Exclusion Ordinance

Introduction

In the landmark case of Patricia Johnson; Michael Au France, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. City of Cincinnati, Defendant-Appellant, 310 F.3d 484 (6th Cir. 2002), the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit addressed the constitutionality of Cincinnati’s drug-exclusion ordinance, Cincinnati Municipal Code § 755. This comprehensive case commentary examines the background, key legal issues, involved parties, judicial findings, and the broader implications established by this decision.

Summary of the Judgment

The City of Cincinnati enacted an ordinance aimed at enhancing the quality of life and safeguarding the welfare of residents in neighborhoods with high incidences of drug-related crimes. This ordinance allowed for the exclusion of individuals arrested or convicted of specific drug offenses from public spaces within designated drug-exclusion zones for set periods. Patricia Johnson and Michael Au France challenged the ordinance, asserting that it infringed upon their constitutional rights. The district court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, deeming the ordinance unconstitutional both on its face and as applied, and awarded attorney fees. The Sixth Circuit affirmed this judgment, reinforcing the protection of fundamental rights against overly broad municipal regulations.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The court extensively referenced both federal and state precedents to underpin its decision. Notable among these were:

• UNITED STATES v. MENDENHALL, 446 U.S. 544 (1980) – Defining the parameters of a seizure under the Fourth Amendment.
• Mem'l Hosp. v. Maricopa County, 415 U.S. 250 (1974) – Addressing the right to travel within a state.
• ROBERTS v. UNITED STATES JAYCEES, 468 U.S. 609 (1984) – Distinguishing between expressive and intimate association.
• Glucksberg v. Washington, 521 U.S. 702 (1997) – Setting standards for strict scrutiny in substantive due process cases.
• STATE v. BURNETT, 93 Ohio St.3d 419 (2001) – An Ohio Supreme Court decision declaring portions of the ordinance unconstitutional.

These cases collectively influenced the court's approach to evaluating the ordinance's impact on constitutional rights, particularly focusing on freedom of association and the right to intrastate travel.

Legal Reasoning

The court's legal reasoning centered on the violation of two fundamental rights: the freedom of association and the right to intrastate travel. Here's a breakdown of the reasoning:

1. Fourth Amendment and Seizure Doctrine

The City argued that the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable seizures applied to the ordinance. However, the court differentiated between pretrial deprivations of liberty, where the Fourth Amendment is applicable, and post-conviction exclusions, which fall under substantive due process protections. The court concluded that the ordinance did not align with the Fourth Amendment's framework but warranted analysis under due process.

2. Substantive Due Process and Fundamental Rights

The court identified the right to intrastate travel and the freedom of association as fundamental rights protected under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. It emphasized that these rights are "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition" and are essential to ordered liberty. The broad exclusionary scope of the ordinance was found to infringe upon these rights without sufficient justification.

3. Strict Scrutiny Applied

Given that fundamental rights were at stake, the court applied strict scrutiny, the highest standard of judicial review. Under strict scrutiny, the ordinance must serve a compelling state interest and be narrowly tailored to achieve that interest. The court found that Cincinnati failed to demonstrate that the ordinance was the least restrictive means available to combat drug-related crimes, especially given its unilateral expulsion of individuals without individualized assessment.

4. Value of Variance Mechanisms

While the ordinance provided for variances under specific conditions, the court found these mechanisms insufficient. They only applied to certain individuals, leaving others without recourse and thereby disproportionately restricting constitutional rights for a broader population.

5. Impact of the Ohio Supreme Court’s Decision

The Ohio Supreme Court's decision in STATE v. BURNETT further influenced the appellate court's stance by declaring parts of the ordinance unconstitutional under both federal and state constitutions. This cemented the ordinance's invalidity, reinforcing the necessity to protect fundamental rights from broad municipal regulations.

Impact

The affirmation by the Sixth Circuit has significant implications:

• Strengthening Fundamental Rights: The decision reinforces the protection of fundamental rights such as freedom of association and intrastate travel against overly broad governmental restrictions.
• Guidance for Municipal Regulations: Municipalities crafting ordinances aimed at controlling crime and drug-related activities must ensure that such regulations are narrowly tailored and do not infringe upon fundamental constitutional rights.
• Judicial Oversight: The ruling underscores the judiciary's role in policing its jurisdiction to prevent unconstitutional laws from being enforced, even if local authorities perceive them as beneficial.
• Precedent for Future Cases: This case serves as a critical reference point for future litigation involving municipal ordinances that restrict personal liberties under the guise of public safety.

Complex Concepts Simplified

1. Substantive Due Process

Substantive Due Process is a constitutional principle that protects certain fundamental rights from government interference, even if procedural protections are met. Unlike procedural due process, which ensures fair procedures, substantive due process concerns the essence or substance of laws, ensuring they do not violate fundamental liberties.

2. Freedom of Association

Freedom of Association refers to the right of individuals to come together and collectively express, promote, pursue, and defend their common interests. This right isn't explicitly mentioned in the Constitution but is derived from the First Amendment and is recognized as fundamental when connected to other constitutional protections.

3. Intrastate vs Interstate Travel

Interstate Travel involves movement between different states and is explicitly protected under the Constitution. The Right to Intrastate Travel, however, pertains to movement within a single state. While historically less emphasized, this right is increasingly recognized as fundamental under substantive due process, protecting individuals from undue governmental restrictions within their own state.

4. Levels of Scrutiny

Judicial review employs different levels of scrutiny to evaluate constitutional challenges:

• Rational Basis Review: The most lenient standard, applied to most laws, requiring that a law be rationally related to a legitimate governmental interest.
• Intermediate Scrutiny: Applied to laws involving certain classifications (e.g., gender), requiring that the law further an important governmental interest in a substantially related way.
• Strict Scrutiny: The highest standard, used for laws affecting fundamental rights or involving suspect classifications (e.g., race), requiring that the law serve a compelling governmental interest and be narrowly tailored to achieve that interest.

In this case, because fundamental rights were implicated, strict scrutiny was applied.

Conclusion

The Sixth Circuit's affirmation of the district court's decision underscores the judiciary's commitment to protecting fundamental constitutional rights against overreaching municipal regulations. By declaring Cincinnati’s drug-exclusion ordinance unconstitutional, the court not only safeguarded the plaintiffs' freedoms of association and intrastate travel but also set a precedent that curbs the extent to which local governments can impose broad restrictions under the guise of public safety. This decision serves as a critical reminder that while municipalities have legitimate interests in maintaining public order and safety, such interests must be pursued without infringing upon the fundamental liberties that form the bedrock of individual freedom in the United States.