Unenforced or Repealed Ordinance Cannot Support Arkansas Civil Rights Act Liability

Introduction

In Boyle Ventures, LLC v. City of Fayetteville (2025 Ark. 71), the Supreme Court of Arkansas addressed whether a municipal ordinance that never went into effect and was later repealed could give rise to a cause of action under the Arkansas Civil Rights Act (ACRA). Boyle Ventures, a franchised pet‐store operator, challenged Fayetteville’s Ordinance No. 6587—an ordinance that would have prohibited retail sales of dogs and cats except from certain shelters and rescues—as contravening two state statutes and the Arkansas Constitution. Through a direct appeal and a cross‐appeal, Boyle sought injunctive relief, damages for alleged civil‐rights violations, and attorney’s fees, while the City defended on grounds of statutory immunity and argued the ordinance complied with state law. The Court held that an ordinance which never took effect, caused no deprivation of rights, and was repealed cannot support liability under ACRA or any statutory conflict cause of action. The cross‐appeal was reversed and remanded with instructions to dismiss; the direct appeal was dismissed as moot.

Summary of the Judgment

• The Benton County Circuit Court had granted summary judgment in part for the City, finding Ordinance No. 6587 conflicted with the Arkansas Retail Pet Store Consumer Protection Act and the Working Animal Protection Act, but that qualified immunity barred damages under ACRA.
• On appeal, a majority of the Supreme Court concluded that because the ordinance never went into effect against Boyle and was later repealed, it caused no actual deprivation of rights or damages.
• Accordingly, the circuit court erred in finding a statutory conflict, and no ACRA claim can stand where no right was ever infringed.
• The Court reversed the cross‐appeal and remanded with instructions to dismiss Boyle’s complaint; the direct appeal and remaining issues were dismissed as moot.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

• Dodson v. Taylor, 346 Ark. 443 (2001) – Establishes the standard for summary judgment: no genuine issue of material fact and entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.
• Smith v. Brt, 363 Ark. 126 (2005) – Discusses qualified immunity in state‐law civil‐rights claims under ACRA, drawing on federal qualified‐immunity principles.
• Rainey v. Harness, 339 Ark. 293 (1999) – Holds that to recover under ACRA, a plaintiff must prove an actual deprivation of a constitutional right.
• City of Fayetteville v. Romine, 373 Ark. 318 (2008) – Confirms that immunity from suit is a question of law reviewed de novo.

Legal Reasoning

The Court’s analysis proceeded in two phases:

1. Statutory Conflict and Mootness
   Boyle argued the Ordinance violated the Arkansas Retail Pet Store Consumer Protection Act and the Working Animal Protection Act, making it unconstitutional under article 12, section 4 of the Arkansas Constitution. However, the ordinance never went into force because Boyle and the City agreed to a stay, and the City repealed the ordinance before enforcement. Once repealed and never applied, any dispute over its validity became moot. The Court held it was error to rule on a statute that, in fact, imposed no burden on Boyle.
2. ACRA Liability Requires Actual Deprivation
   Under ACRA (Ark. Code Ann. § 16-123-105), liability attaches only when “under color of” local law a person is deprived of rights secured by the Arkansas Constitution. Because Boyle suffered no enforcement, there was no denial of any right. Mootness—and absence of harm—forecloses any award of damages or injunctive relief under ACRA.

Impact

The decision sets two important precedents in Arkansas municipal and civil‐rights law:

• Enforcement Requirement: A claim under the Arkansas Civil Rights Act cannot be sustained against a municipality for an ordinance never enforced or applied to the plaintiff.
• Mootness Doctrine: A repealed municipal ordinance that never took effect presents no live controversy, barring declaratory or injunctive relief and nullifying any statutory conflict claim.

Future challenges to local ordinances will require proof of actual enforcement or concrete harm to survive summary judgment.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Mootness: Courts only decide live disputes. If a law is repealed before it harms the plaintiff, there’s nothing left to litigate.
• Arkansas Civil Rights Act (ACRA): Provides a cause of action for any person whose rights under the Arkansas Constitution are violated “under color of” local statutes or ordinances. A plaintiff must show actual deprivation of a constitutional right to recover.
• Qualified Immunity: Shields government entities or officials from damages unless they violate clearly established constitutional rights. Here, it was unnecessary to reach immunity because no deprivation occurred.

Conclusion

Boyle Ventures, LLC v. City of Fayetteville clarifies that:

• An unenforced, repealed ordinance cannot give rise to liability under ACRA or state‐statutory clash claims.
• Arkansas courts will dismiss as moot any challenge to a municipal law that was never applied and has been repealed.
• Actual deprivation of a constitutional right is a threshold requirement for damages under the Arkansas Civil Rights Act.

By reaffirming the limits of mootness and enforcement, the Court ensures that municipalities cannot be sued over unenforced ordinances and that plaintiffs must demonstrate real, not hypothetical, harms to invoke constitutional protections.