Protect Fayetteville v. City of Fayetteville

510 S.W.3d 258 (2017)

From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Protect Fayetteville v. City of Fayetteville

Arkansas Supreme Court
510 S.W.3d 258 (2017)

Facts

In 2015, the Arkansas legislature enacted Act 137 to promote intrastate commerce by ensuring that businesses, organizations, and employers were subject to uniform antidiscrimination laws across the state. The act expressly prohibited local governments, such as counties and municipalities, from adopting ordinances or policies that prohibited discrimination on a basis not contained in state law. Also in 2015, the city council of Fayetteville, Arkansas (the city) (defendant) adopted an ordinance with the express purpose of extending existing antidiscrimination protections to lesbian, gay, transgender, and bisexual persons. The ordinance stated that a person’s right to be free from discrimination on the basis of gender identity and sexual orientation was the same as the right to be free from discrimination on the basis of the classifications listed in the Arkansas Civil Rights Act, namely race, religion, national origin, gender, and disability. Protect Fayetteville and others (plaintiffs) filed a complaint seeking a declaratory judgment that the city ordinance violated the state act because it prohibited discrimination on a basis not contained in state law. In response, the city argued that gender identity and sexual orientation were protected under other state statutes, namely an antibullying statute, a statute governing shelters for victims of domestic abuse, and a statute allowing modifications to birth certificates. Consequently, according to the city, its ordinance did not prohibit discrimination on a basis not contained in state law. The trial court agreed, holding in the city’s favor. Protect Fayetteville and the other objecting parties appealed to the Arkansas Supreme Court.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Hart, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 815,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership