Bellinger v. Bowser
Civil Action No. 2017-2124
| D.D.C. | Dec 15, 2017Background
- Capitol View Library (Ward 7) serves a predominantly Black neighborhood and was closed for interior renovation in Feb 2017; DCPL planned re-opening Dec 18, 2017 and later exterior work in spring 2018 with an interim facility then.
- Renovation funding for Capitol View shifted over FYs: initially $10.5M (FY2015), cut to $4.5M (FY2016), increased to ~$7.2M (FY2018) and later to ~$7.9M with additional sources.
- DCPL provided interim services (staff at nearby branches, school outreach) but did not maintain a temporary interim facility during the initial closure; $700K was allocated in FY2018 for interim space but not yet spent.
- Plaintiffs sued claiming violations of the Budget Autonomy Act (reprogramming), the Equal Protection Clause (racial discrimination), substantive due process, and the D.C. Human Rights Act (place-of-residence discrimination), and moved for a preliminary injunction to alter renovation plans, require additional resources, and enjoin reopening.
- The court held an evidentiary record showing DCPL’s budgeting rationales, comparisons across multiple branch projects, and planned interim arrangements (e.g., Memorandum of Agreement with a school) and found the interior renovations substantially complete with a Certificate of Occupancy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Budget Autonomy Act reprogramming | DCPL reprogrammed or will reprogram $700K allocated for interim space in violation of D.C. Code § 1-204.46(d) | No private right of action likely; no reprogramming has occurred and funds may be used as allocated or reprogrammed only with Mayor/Council approval | Plaintiffs unlikely to succeed; no showing of statutory violation or private enforcement right |
| Equal Protection (racial discrimination) | DCPL intentionally discriminated by allocating fewer renovation/resources to Capitol View vs. predominantly white branches (cherry-picks Cleveland Park) | Funding and service differences explained by nonracial factors (budget adjustments, closure length, circulation, facility size); broader data do not show a racially discriminatory pattern | Plaintiffs unlikely to show discriminatory intent; evidence does not support an Arlington Heights claim |
| Substantive due process | Denial of library improvements/services violates substantive due process rights | No constitutionally cognizable property/liberty interest in specific renovation choices; resource-allocation decisions entitled to rational-basis presumption | Claim fails; conduct is ordinary resource allocation, not conscience-shocking misconduct |
| D.C. Human Rights Act (place-of-residence) | DCPL’s actions unlawfully limit services based on place of residence | Entire DCPL system remains open to all residents; decisions reflect nondiscriminatory budgeting and operational criteria; statutory scope does not reach routine policy allocations | Claim unlikely to succeed; no selective denial of benefits and nondiscriminatory justifications prevail |
Key Cases Cited
- Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (preliminary injunction standard requires showing likelihood of success, irreparable harm, balance of equities, and public interest)
- Chaplaincy of Full Gospel Churches v. England, 454 F.3d 290 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (sliding-scale approach to preliminary injunction factors)
- Sherley v. Sebelius, 644 F.3d 388 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (likelihood of success may be independent requirement post-Winter)
- Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252 (1977) (framework for proving discriminatory intent under Equal Protection)
- Pers. Adm’r of Massachusetts v. Feeney, 442 U.S. 256 (1979) (intent requires more than awareness of consequences)
- Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 364 U.S. 339 (1960) (extreme pattern of racial discrimination may establish intent)
- Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886) (disparate treatment in enforcement as evidence of discriminatory intent)
- Collins v. City of Harker Heights, 503 U.S. 115 (1992) (presumption of rationality for government resource-allocation decisions)
- Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347 (1976) (loss of constitutional rights can constitute irreparable harm)
- Boykin v. Gray, 895 F. Supp. 2d 199 (D.D.C. 2012) (DCHRA place-of-residence claim dismissed where systemwide access remained available)