Fross v. County of Allegheny, 20 A.3d 1193

Allegheny County enacted Ordinance No. 39-07-OR restricting Megan's Law registrants to within 2,500 feet of child facilities, parks, centers, and schools.
Ordinance imposes notices and a 45-day relocation window, with daily violations and penalties, applying for the duration of Megan's Law registration.
Appellees, convicted sex offenders under Megan's Law, challenged the Ordinance in federal court on state-law preemption grounds.
District Court granted summary judgment for appellees, finding the Ordinance preempted by the Parole and Sentencing Codes and Megan's Law ecosystem.
The Third Circuit certified a question of Pennsylvania law to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court and stayed further action pending decision.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Preemption: does the Ordinance conflict with state laws?	Fross argues ordinance obstructs state parole/sentencing aims.	Allegheny contends home-rule authority allows local augmentation of public safety.	Yes; ordinance preempted by conflict with state enactments.
Field preemption viability?	Appellees assert field preemption voids local regulation of probation/parole.	County asserts no field preemption because issues are local health/safety matters.	Not decided; conflict preemption governs and controls.
Does home-rule authority permit such residency ban?	Statewide policy must prevail over local ban on residency.	County claims home-rule broad authority to tailor public safety locally.	No; ordinance conflicts with General Assembly's rehabilitation/integration goals and is preempted.

Holt's Cigar Co. v. City of Phila., 10 A.3d 902 (Pa. 2011) (local ordinances invalid if obstacle to full purposes of state law)
Nutter v. Dougherty, 938 A.2d 401 (Pa. 2007) (conflict preemption framework and home-rule limitations)
Commonwealth v. Walton, 397 A.2d 1179 (Pa. 1979) (probation conditions are rehabilitative and tailored to individuals)