224 A.3d 833
R.I.2020Background
- In 2017 Barrington first adopted Ordinance No. 2017-7 (Licensing Ordinance) requiring a town tobacco dealer’s license and prohibiting sales of flavored tobacco and sales to persons under 21; that ordinance was repealed and replaced by Ordinance No. 2017-17 (Tobacco Ordinance) that retained the flavored-tobacco ban (except for certain "electronic smoking device establishments") and the under-21 prohibition and established fines.
- Plaintiffs are two Barrington businesses (K&W Automotive, ECIG Shed) and their owners, licensed by the State to sell tobacco/e-cigarette products; they sued in Superior Court for declaratory and injunctive relief to block enforcement.
- The Superior Court held the Tobacco Ordinance null and void, concluding the ordinance addressed a matter of statewide concern and the town therefore lacked Home Rule authority under the three-factor test from Town of East Greenwich v. O’Neil.
- The hearing justice declined to decide whether state law preempted the ordinance because she found the town lacked authority to enact it in the first instance.
- The Town appealed; the Supreme Court reviewed the stipulated facts de novo as to legal issues and affirmed the Superior Court judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Barrington had Home Rule authority to enact the Tobacco Ordinance (local vs statewide concern) | Statewide concern: tobacco regulation and business regulation are historically and primarily state matters; uniform regulation is needed | Local concern: ordinance addresses local public-health choices and has limited local impact | Held: Ordinance concerns a matter of statewide concern under the O’Neil three-factor test; Town lacked Home Rule authority, so ordinance invalid |
| Whether the hearing justice erred by not conducting a preemption analysis | (If addressed) state law likely preempts at least the minimum-age provision | Ordinance is consistent with state law and therefore not preempted; the court should have analyzed preemption | Held: No error — preemption need not be decided where municipality lacked Home Rule authority; preemption analysis applies only if municipality would have authority absent state action (Town of Warren) |
| Whether the General Assembly delegated authority to Barrington via statutes to enact the ordinance | State did not delegate such authority; regulation remains statewide | Statutes cited (various titles) confer enabling authority to localities | Held: Delegation argument was inadequately developed on appeal and deemed waived; court did not reach delegation merits |
Key Cases Cited
- Town of East Greenwich v. O’Neil, 617 A.2d 104 (R.I. 1992) (articulates three-factor test to decide whether a matter is local or statewide concern under Home Rule)
- Amico’s Inc. v. Mattos, 789 A.2d 899 (R.I. 2002) (Home Rule Amendment permits municipalities to legislate purely local matters but not statewide concerns)
- Brancato v. Westerly Residents for Thoughtful Development, 565 A.2d 1262 (R.I. 1989) (recognizes certain fields — e.g., regulation of business, licensing — as traditionally state matters)
- Town of Warren v. Thornton-Whitehouse, 740 A.2d 1255 (R.I. 1999) (preemption applies only where municipality would otherwise have authority to regulate absent state action)
- State ex rel. Town of Westerly v. Bradley, 877 A.2d 601 (R.I. 2005) (addressed interplay of municipal regulation and state authority; Town relied on it but Court found that reliance misplaced)