Legal Corner: U.S. Supreme Court Cases Affecting Local Governments

by Christina Estes-Werther, League General Counsel

In February, the Legal Corner provided a midterm update on cases affecting local governments that were pending before the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court concluded its term in June and this article will highlight the outcome of those cases. Mickell Summerhays, League Summer Extern from Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law at ASU, contributed to the summaries of these cases.

Packingham v. North Carolina, 137 S.Ct. 1730 (2017)

The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held that a state law banning registered sex offenders from accessing commercial social networking sites was unconstitutional because it violates the First Amendment Free Speech Clause. Lester Packingham Jr. was charged with violating the North Carolina law when he posted a message on Facebook conveying his excitement about not having to pay for a traffic ticket. Mr. Packingham, a registered sex offender, was subsequently arrested and convicted under state law. On appeal, the North Carolina Court of Appeals reversed and found that the state law regulated Mr. Packingham’s conduct and not his speech.

The U.S. Supreme Court held that the law did not survive intermediate scrutiny because it was not narrowly tailored. The Court noted the daily use of social media for routine tasks including being aware of current events, speaking and listening in the modern public square, or searching for employment. The Court found the statute was too broad and that prohibiting access to all social media prevents the user from “engaging in the legitimate exercise of First Amendment rights.” However, the Court indicated that the State could enact a more specific law since criminal acts are not protected speech.

The International Municipal Lawyers Association (IMLA) filed an amicus brief in this case primarily to address the appellate court’s dissenting opinion that touched on Reed v. Town of Gilbert but the Supreme Court did not address this issue. As social media use becomes more commonplace, cities and towns will have to be cautious that any restrictions on its use do not offend the First Amendment Free Speech clause.

Murr v. Wisconsin, 137 S. Ct. 1933 (2017)

In Murr v. Wisconsin, the Supreme Court held that Wisconsin did not engage in an unconstitutional taking of property when the property owners combined two nonconforming, adjacent lots and were later prevented from selling one of the lots under a merger provision in Wisconsin law. The Murrs owned Lot F and a few years later purchased adjacent Lot E, which resulted in a merger of the two lots under a St. Croix County ordinance. When the Murrs wanted to resell Lot E, the county zoning staff opposed their variance to separately use or sell their two contiguous lots.

The Wisconsin Court of Appeals ruled there was no taking in this case and the Murrs appealed. The U.S. Supreme Court found that the lots were subject to the regulatory burden because of the Murrs voluntary conduct to purchase the second lot, which led to the merger; the physical characteristics of the lots makes it reasonable to expect that its use might be limited; and while the Murrs are prohibited from selling the lots separately or building separate residential structures on each, there are benefits of the merger, including that the combined valuation is increased. The Court held that the Murrs have not suffered a regulatory taking as they have not been deprived of all economic beneficial use of their property and treating the lot in question as a single parcel is legitimate.

An amicus brief was filed in this case by a number of governmental entities on behalf of St. Croix County’s arguing that zoning is a vital function performed by local governments and these types of decisions should be left to the local elected officials who understand the needs and characteristics of their own communities. The decision was a great success for local governments since it preserves a municipality’s authority to place reasonable limits on the use of property.

County of Los Angeles v. Mendez, 137 S. Ct. 1539

In County of Los Angeles v. Mendez, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously vacated and remanded a previous Ninth Circuit decision relating to a police officer’s reasonable use of deadly force. The case involves police officers who were part of a large search for a fugitive in Los Angeles County. While officers were searching a home, two other officers were searching the back of the property and came upon a shack. The officers entered the shack without announcing themselves and saw an individual, Angel Mendez, pointing a gun at them. Officers responded by shooting Mr. Mendez and his wife. The Ninth Circuit awarded Mr. Mendez and his wife damages because the officers didn’t have a warrant to search the shack and “provoked” Mr. Mendez by intentionally or recklessly provoking a violent confrontation and held the officer liable for use of deadly force. The Ninth Circuit also held that an officer’s warrantless entry triggered Mr. Mendez’s display of force and the officer’s violation was deemed to be the proximate cause of any injuries resulting from the officer’s actions.

The Court ruled that the Ninth Circuit’s provocation doctrine had no basis in the Fourth Amendment and the existing standard applies - a police officer’s use of force violates the constitution only if it is objectively unreasonable under the circumstances. The Court rejected the provocation rule and noted that its use requires another constitutional violation "to manufacture an excessive force claim where one would not otherwise exist." Further, this decision does not prevent the plaintiffs from seeking damages but any recovery must be awarded because the injuries were proximately caused by the warrantless entry, not by the provocation rule.

IMLA participated in an amicus brief that argued that the Ninth Circuit’s rulings should be overturned to protect the safety of peace officers and the general public. This decision was a positive outcome because it provides consistency among the circuits in excessive force cases, especially for local governments in the Ninth Circuit who were previously held to a different standard.

For more information about IMLA or to read the amicus briefs filed on behalf of local governments, visit their website: http://imla.org/legal-advocacy.