Arthur Gallagher v. City of Clayton
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 23050
| 8th Cir. | 2012Background
- Gallagher sued the City of Clayton and officials in their official capacities under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988 challenging Ordinance 6118 banning outdoor smoking on city property.
- Ordinance 6118 permits smoking in streets, alleys, rights of way and sidewalks outside parks, with City Manager discretion to ban during public events.
- Board cited public health, litter reduction, and aesthetics as justifications for the Ordinance.
- District court dismissed Gallagher’s federal claims as facially implausible and declined supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims.
- Gallagher appealed, arguing six constitutional theories and related due-process claims; the court reviews de novo the Rule 12(c) grant.
- Court affirmatively held that Gallagher’s federal claims fail as a matter of law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is outdoor smoking a fundamental right requiring strict scrutiny? | Gallagher asserts outdoor smoking is a fundamental right. | City contends no fundamental right to smoke outdoors exists. | Not a fundamental right; strict scrutiny not triggered. |
| Are smokers a suspect or quasi-suspect class? | Smokers should be treated as a suspect or quasi-suspect class. | Smokers do not constitute a suspect class deserving heightened scrutiny. | No suspect or quasi-suspect classification found. |
| Does the Ordinance pass rational-basis review? | Rational-basis review fails due to lack of legitimate purpose and underinclusivity. | Health, safety, litter, and aesthetic concerns provide a legitimate basis. | Yes; health-based rationale sustains rational-basis review. |
| Does Romer-style heightened rational basis apply due to alleged animus? | Ordinance is pretextual and motivated by animus toward smokers. | Romer analysis not applicable because a legitimate interest exists. | Not applicable; Romer not triggered since health basis suffices. |
| Is the ordinance void for vagueness or due-process issues due to City Manager discretion? | Unbounded discretion creates vagueness and potential arbitrary enforcement. | Standards for City Manager discretion were not violated; First Amendment not implicated here. | Facial vagueness challenges rejected; as-applied challenges not properly before court; not void. |
| Did the district court err by not addressing the Privileges or Immunities claim? | O&I claim should be addressed on the merits. | Plaintiff failed to plead this claim; not properly before district court. | Not reached; claim not properly raised in district court. |
Key Cases Cited
- Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702 (U.S. 1997) (fundamental-right inquiry under substantive due process)
- Moore v. City of East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494 (U.S. 1977) (fundamental-right sensitivity to liberty interests)
- Planned Parenthood of S.E. Penn. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (U.S. 1992) (bodily autonomy and substantial state interest framing)
- Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (U.S. 1996) (heightened rational basis where animus is sole purpose)
- Heller v. Doe, 509 U.S. 312 (U.S. 1993) (rational-basis with bite and deference to legislative decisions)
- Beach Communications, Inc. v. FCC, 508 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1993) (governmental rationale need not be perfect; permissible conjecture)
- Collins v. City of Harker Heights, 503 U.S. 115 (U.S. 1992) (judicial restraint in recognizing new fundamental rights)
- Lehnhausen v. Lake Shore Auto Parts Co., 410 U.S. 356 (U.S. 1973) (permissible to rely on legislative facts adequate to support law)
- Gasper v. La. Stadium & Exposition Dist., 418 F. Supp. 716 (E.D. La. 1976) (legislative policy decisions to regulate conduct)
- Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104 (U.S. 1972) (vagueness and overbreadth concerns in statutes)