Lakendus Cole v. City of Memphis
839 F.3d 530
6th Cir.2016Background
- Beale Street Sweep policy directed police to clear two-block Beale Street sidewalks/street around 3 a.m. on weekends, with signs and warnings prior to sweeping.
- Plaintiffs alleged the sweep violated intrastate travel rights and created a hostile environment, seeking class-wide relief.
- Jury found the City conducted the sweep as a habitual practice, without considering public-safety conditions, and that it caused Cole’s arrest.
- District court held the sweep unconstitutional under strict scrutiny and granted injunctive and other equitable relief.
- District court later revised the Beale Street Sweep definition for the injunction, and certified a Rule 23(b)(2) class for injunctive relief only.
- City appealed challenging strict-scrutiny application, class ascertainability under 23(b)(2), and sufficiency of evidence linking the sweep to Cole’s arrest.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Beale Street Sweep infringes intrastate travel and what scrutiny applies | Cole argues right to intrastate travel is fundamental; strict scrutiny | City argues only minimal burden; rational basis or intermediate scrutiny | Intermediate scrutiny governs; sweep not narrowly tailored to public-safety goals |
| Whether class certification under Rule 23(b)(2) requires ascertainability | Ascertainability not required for (b)(2) since injunctive relief targets all class members | Ascertainability required to identify class members even for (b)(2) | Ascertainability not required for a (b)(2) class seeking injunctive/declaratory relief |
| Whether the Beale Street Sweep was sufficiently tied to public safety under intermediate scrutiny | Sweep targeted public-safety, time/place limited | Sweep was a reasonable time/place restriction aimed at safety | Not narrowly tailored to public-safety objective; fails intermediate scrutiny |
| Whether there was sufficient evidence the sweep was the moving force behind Cole’s arrest | Sweep caused arrest by enforcing unlawful removal | Evidence showed arrest due to not leaving street; connection contested | Evidence supports jury finding that sweep caused arrest; district court’s outcome affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. City of Cincinnati, 310 F.3d 484 (6th Cir. 2002) (fundamental right to intrastate travel; scrutiny discussion)
- Lutz v. City of York, 899 F.2d 255 (3d Cir. 1990) (place restrictions; intermediate scrutiny plausibility)
- LULAC v. Bredesen, 500 F.3d 523 (6th Cir. 2007) (travel-right burden analysis; incidental inconvenience distinction)
- Neinast v. Bd. of Trs. of Columbus Metro. Library, 346 F.3d 585 (6th Cir. 2003) (intermediate scrutiny standard guidance)
- Ross v. Early, 746 F.3d 546 (4th Cir. 2014) (burden on government under intermediate scrutiny)
- Bd. of Trustees of State Univ. of N.Y. v. Fox, 492 U.S. 469 (1989) (intermediate scrutiny framework)
- Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781 (1989) (time/place/manner regulation framework under intermediate scrutiny)
- Shelton v. Bledsoe, 775 F.3d 554 (3d Cir. 2015) (ascertainability in (b)(2) context (cited about class definitions))
- Yaffe v. Powers, 454 F.2d 1362 (1st Cir. 1972) (ascertainability discussion in (b)(2) context)
- Ramos v. Town of Vernon, 353 F.3d 171 (2d Cir. 2003) (intermediate vs. strict scrutiny discussions (curfew context))