Bank of Amicus Briefs and Legal Documents

This amicus brief was submitted to the US Supreme Court on a case addressing the validity of certain intentional partisan gerrymandering practices. This brief connects the rise of partisan gerrymandering to the rise of intrastate preemption and argues that both of these practices undermine local democracy.

View the Brief

This amicus brief was submitted in support of NAACP’s appeal, arguing that the Federal Voting Rights Act allows minority voters to bring private enforcement actions against states.

View the Brief

This amicus brief was submitted in support of NAACP’s appeal, arguing that the Alabama state law preempting Birmingham’s minimum wage ordinance does violate the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

View the Brief

This amicus brief submitted was in support of NAACP’s appeal, arguing that preemption of local minimum wage ordinances undermines the ability of policymakers to respond to local economic conditions, that such preemption disproportionately impacts African American workers, and that higher local minimum wages are a sound policy idea.

View the Brief

This amicus brief was submitted by A Better Balance in support of an American Airlines employee who was denied paid sick leave, arguing that Arizona’s Earned Paid Sick Time Act covered the employee even though he was also covered by a Collective Bargaining Agreement. 

View the Brief

Amicus brief submitted in support of the city of Phoenix, arguing that the city’s regulation of pet dealers should not be preempted by state law because of the state’s inaction with regard to regulating pet dealers.

View the Brief

This amicus brief was submitted in support of Fayetteville, arguing that the city’s antidiscrimination ordinance is not preempted by an Arkansas state law, and if it is, that the Arkansas state law violates the U.S. Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause. This case has been remanded to a lower court to determine whether the Arkansas state law violates the Equal Protection Clause.

View the Brief

Amicus brief submitted in support of Miami Beach’s minimum wage ordinance, arguing that the Florida Constitution authorizes municipalities to adopt a higher minimum wage than the state’s.

View the Brief

Amicus brief submitted in support of Miami Beach’s minimum wage ordinance, arguing that the Minimum Wage Amendment to the Florida Constitution explicitly preserved local power to adopt a higher minimum wage than the state’s.

View the Brief

Amicus brief submitted in support of the City of Tallahassee arguing that local legislators are absolutely immune from suit for their legislative activity under the Florida Constitution.

View the Brief

Amicus brief submitted in support of the City of Tallahassee arguing that local legislators are absolutely immune from suit for their legislative activity under the Florida and Federal Constitutions, and that punitive preemption provisions such as those found in Florida’s preemption law would have a chilling effect on legitimate legislative activity.

View the Brief

Amicus brief by the Int’l Assoc. of Mun. Lawyers & Legal Scholars, arguing that the city of South Portland had the authority to prohibit the storing and handling of petroleum in certain zoning districts.

View the Brief

Amicus brief by the Int’l Assoc. of Mun. Lawyers & Legal Scholars, arguing that the city of South Portland had the authority to prohibit the storing and handling of petroleum in certain zoning districts.

View the Brief

Amicus brief submitted by SEIU Local 26, TakeAction Minnesota, Centro de Trabajadores Unidos en la Lucha, and A Better Balance, arguing that Minneapolis’s Sick and Safe Time Law does not have an impermissible extraterritorial effect.

View the Brief

Amicus Brief submitted in support of allowing a Kansas City, Missouri ballot proposal to raise the minimum wage to go forward, arguing that Kansas City has authority to set a higher wage than that state’s.

View the Brief.

Amicus brief submitted in support of the validity of New York City’s Fair Workweek Law, arguing that local regulations should enjoy a presumption of validity and that the Fair Workweek Law is not preempted by existing state labor law.

View the Brief.

Amicus brief submitted in support of Cleveland, arguing the enactment of Cleveland’s Fannie Lewis local hire law was an exercise of the city’s police powers, that the state law prohibiting Ohio municipalities from adopting local hire requirements violates Ohio’s Home Rule doctrine, and that the state’s attempt to preempt Cleveland’s local hire law is part of a troubling nationwide assault on Home Rule.

View the Brief.

Amicus brief submitted in support of Cleveland, arguing that the state law prohibiting Ohio municipalities from adopting local hire requirements violates Ohio’s Home Rule doctrine and is part of a troubling nationwide assault on Home Rule.

View the Brief.

This amicus brief was submitted by the International Municipal Lawyers Association and A Better Balance, in support of appellants. They make the case that local governments need to be able to use the full breadth of their police powers to protect their communities.

Amicus brief submitted to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court by fifty-one organizations committed to women’s health and safety in support of Pittsburgh. The brief explains the importance of paid sick leave to protect public health, notes that a lack of paid sick leave disproportionately harms women and people of color, and argues that Pittsburgh has the authority to enact the Paid Sick Days Act.

View the Brief

Amicus brief submitted to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court by A Better Balance and leading law school professor experts in local government law and/or labor law in support of Pittsburgh. The brief outlines the history and importance of home rule in Pennsylvania, argues that Pittsburgh has the authority to pass the Paid Sick Days Act, and notes that striking down the ordinance would undermine home rule in Pennsylvania, severely limiting the ability of municipalities to protect public health and safety.

View the Brief

Amicus brief submitted by A Better Balance in support of San Antonio’s paid sick leave law, arguing that the ordinance should not be preliminarily enjoined.

View the Brief.

Amicus brief submitted by state and national local government law professors in support of San Antonio’s paid sick leave law, arguing that the city has authority to enact the law and that such authority has not been preempted.

View the Brief.

Amicus brief by A Better Balance before the Texas 3rd Court of Appeals in support of Austin’s Earned Sick Time Ordinance, arguing that, because paid sick leave laws like Austin’s do not harm businesses and provide significant benefits to workers, the court should not temporarily enjoin the ordinance while it is being challenged.

View the Brief.

Amicus brief by a group of law professors specializing in local government law and related fields, before the Texas 3rd Court of Appeals, describing the history and purpose of the Texas Home Rule Amendment and arguing that Texas’s minimum wage law does not preempt Austin’s Earned Sick Time Ordinance.

View the Brief.

Amicus brief by the Workers Defense Project, Austin workers, businesses, and advocacy organizations arguing that Austin’s Earned Sick Time Ordinance should not be temporarily enjoined because the plaintiffs challenging the ordinance have failed to demonstrate (1) that the ordinance is unduly burdensome to businesses in relation to the underlying government interest of protecting the health and safety of Austin residents, (2) that there was no rational reason to allow employers operating under a collective bargaining agreement to modify the cap of required paid sick leave, and (3) that the records-keeping requirement under the ordinance would subject businesses to unreasonable searches and seizures.

View the Brief.

Amicus brief submitted to the Washington State Supreme Court emphasizing the importance of local control over fiscal authority, in this case over local transportation revenue.

View the Brief.

7th Circuit decision upholding a preliminary injunction on efforts by the Department of Justice to withhold federal grants from “sanctuary cities.”

View the Decision

Complaint filed by Chicago to enjoin the Department of Justice from withholding federal grant funding from “sanctuary cities.”

View the Complaint

Complaint filed by San Francisco to enjoin the Department of Justice from withholding federal grant funding from “sanctuary cities.”

View the Complaint

District Court (N.D. Cal.) decision enjoining the enforcement of a federal Executive Order that threatened to withhold funding from “sanctuary cities.”

View the Decision

This District Court (N.D. Cal.) decision enjoined the enforcement of a federal Executive Order that threatened to withhold funding from “sanctuary cities.”

View the Decision

This is the District Court (N.D. Ala.) decision that the state law preempting Birmingham’s minimum wage violated neither the Federal Voting Rights Act nor the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution. This decision is currently being appealed.

View the Decision

This complaint was filed by the NAACP arguing that an Alabama state law preempting Birmingham’s minimum wage ordinance violates the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution and the Federal Voting Rights Act.

View the Complaint

Arizona Superior Court decision holding that an Arizona law preempting local regulation of employee benefits was invalid because the Voter Protection Act prevents the state Legislature from amending or superseding voter-approved initiatives unless the state law either furthers the purposes of the initiative or is passed by a three-fourths majority in the House of Representatives and the Senate, and Arizona voters had previously approved an initiative that explicitly preserved the power of municipalities to regulate “wages and other benefits.

View the Decision

Florida Appellate Court decision holding that the Minimum Wage Amendment to the Florida Constitution does not prevent the state from preempting local authority to establish a higher minimum wage in a subsequent statute. This decision is being appealed.

View the Decision

Florida 11th Circuit Court decision finding that a state law prohibiting local regulation of polystyrene did not preempt Coral Gables’ ban on certain polystyrene food packaging. This decision is currently being appealed.

Read the Decision

Florida Appellate Court decision holding that Tallahassee legislators were not personally liable for failing to rescind decades old firearms regulations in light of a state punitive preemption law prescribing inpidual liability for local legislators “promulgating” firearms regulations. This decision did not reach the merits of whether the state law’s use punitive preemption is unconstitutional and is currently being appealed.

Read the Decision

This decision from the Iowa Supreme Court upheld portions of Waterloo’s ban-the-box ordinance, holding that the city can regulate when an employer can ask a job applicant about their criminal history, but cannot regulate whether or not an employer relies on an applicant’s criminal history at all. 

View the Decision

Michigan Court of Appeals decision upholding policies enacted by Ann Arbor Public Schools banning the possession of firearms on school property and at school-sponsored activities. The Court found that these policies were not preempted by state gun regulations.

Read the Decision

Minnesota District Court decision upholding Minnesota’s minimum wage ordinance, finding that a state minimum wage statute did not impliedly preempt a local ordinance requiring a higher minimum wage.

Read the Decision

Minnesota District Court decision declining to preliminarily enjoin Minneapolis’s paid sick time ordinance, except to the extent that it applies to employers outside of Minneapolis. The decision holds that Minneapolis was likely to succeed on the issue of whether the ordinance was preempted by state law but that it was unclear whether Minneapolis could enforce the ordinance against employers outside of Minneapolis. This case is currently pending at the intermediate appellate level.

View the Decision

Missouri Supreme Court decision upholding St. Louis’ minimum wage increase because the state law seeking to preempt it was unconstitutionally enacted. Missouri has since taken legislative steps to limit local minimum wage increases.

View the Decision

Missouri Supreme Court decision allowing Kansas City to submit a ballot proposal on raising the minimum wage, but not addressing any substantive arguments as to whether such a minimum wage increase would be nullified by Missouri state law preempting local minimum wage increases.

View the Decision

Brief filed by the City of Cleveland arguing that the city’s enactment of the Fannie Lewis local hire law was an exercise of police power and that a state law limiting the authority of Ohio cities to enact local hire laws violates the state constitution’s prohibition against special laws.

View the Merits Brief

Ohio Court of Common Pleas Decision granting a permanent injunction on Ohio’s enforcement of a law prohibiting municipalities from adopting local hire ordinances, holding that the state law unconstitutionally infringed on Cleveland’s Home Rule powers.

View the Decision

Complaint filed by Cleveland seeking to invalidate an Ohio law that would preempt municipal local hire requirements, arguing that the state law violates the Home Rule powers of Ohio municipalities.

View the Complaint

Pennsylvania appellate court decision holding that Pittsburgh lacked the authority to enact a paid sick time ordinance because 2nd class cities—like Pittsburgh—are statutorily barred from enacting “business regulations.” The dissent argues that Pittsburgh’s paid sick time ordinance was a valid use of its police powers to enact ordinances to protect health and safety. This case is currently being appealed.

View the Decision

Brief filed by the City of Austin before the Texas 3rd Court of Appeals arguing that the state’s minimum wage law does not preempt the city’s Earned Sick Time Ordinance, that the city had a rational basis for enacting the ordinance, and that the court should not temporarily enjoin the enforcement of the ordinance while it is being challenged.

View the Appellate Brief

District Court decision granting a preliminary injunction against parts of Texas’s SB4, which would prevent municipalities from establishing “sanctuary city” policies and impose penalties against localities that do so. The decision holds that a provision blocking local government entities and officials from “endorsing” sanctuary city policies likely violates the First Amendment, that provisions prohibiting localities from adopting certain policies, patterns or practices regarding immigration enforcement and cooperation are likely unconstitutionally vague under the 14th Amendment, that a provision forcing local jails to honor ICE detention requests likely violates the Fourth Amendment, and that a provision requiring local police departments to allow their officers to provide enforcement assistance of federal immigration law was likely preempted by federal immigration law.

View the Decision