Question One …
Question One (One Hour and a Half) Tyler City, the largest city in the state of Jackson, has invested heavily in projects intended to revitalize its downtown business district, including a minor league baseball park, a riverfront park, and a theater complex. These attractions have lured many new businesses to the downtown district, including restaurants, clubs, retail shops and hotels, increasing tax revenues and urban vitality. This growth, however, has brought many challenges. Crime rates, for example, have increased, especially on weekend nights, when teenagers and young adults, often under the influence of narcotics and alcohol have engaged in fights, assaults, and other forms of violence. To deal with these problems, the Jackson state legislature has enacted a law empowering its cities to establish Downtown Governance Districts (“DGD”). (Tyler City has already voted to establish a district). These districts are governed by a three member board elected by those who either own real property or own a business in the defined downtown district. The DGD board has the authority to make ordinances governing public health, safety, and welfare, as well as the power to tax and spend in order to implement these policies. The bill’s sponsors argued that the challenges faced in the urban cores of large cities like Jackson, like the preservation of public order, securing care for a significant homeless population, providing signage and other amenities for tourists, and providing transportation infrastructure such as urban street cars, differ in kind than those handled by general local government. The policy choices on how to deal with these problems, the sponsors reason, have an enormous impact on the large investments made by downtown property or business owners and consequently should be controlled by those with the most stake in their success. There are, however, a large group of downtown residents who rent their homes (many of them young professionals who like the vibe of the city) who both care deeply about and will be significantly impacted by the policies that will be enacted by the DGD board. They too want to elect and hold accountable the members of the board. They have sued. The newly elected Tyler City DGD board has already swung into action. Its first major policy decision was to take away the responsibility for on-ground patrolling the DGD from the Tyler City police department and turn it over it to the Armor Clad Security company (“ACS”). The DGD and ACS have signed an annually renewable contract that states that the DGD will supply sufficient funding for ACS to provide a dedicated district force of officers to provide security within the boundaries of the district. The security officers have the authority to temporarily detain, but not arrest or jail anyone; if someone allegedly violates the law, the security officers are required to call the Tyler City police department. ACS, under the contract, will hire, train, and discipline its officers. (They will wear ACS uniforms, with the addition of a special insignia for those that work in the Tyler City DGD.) Every year, when the contract comes up for renewal, ACS will produce a report describing the activities of its district officers each year, including the number of incidents handled by its officers and also appending the ACS training protocol and employee manual. The DGD board each year, as they did when they approved the contract, will review the protocol and manual, as well as the report, in making the decision whether to renew the contract. ACS markets itself, and the board was impressed by (each board member made positive comments about this claim at a public meeting), as a security force made of officers of high character. The owner and leader of ACS, Tim Falwell has a distinct idea of high character. As stated in the employee manual and followed strictly in company actions, ACS will not hire any employees who are either transgender or married to someone of the same biological gender. Falwell’s written introduction to the ACS manual states that only those who follow traditional moral principles in their private lives can be trusted with the authority invested in security officers. Two Tyler City residents, one of whom is transgender and the other of whom is married to a spouse of the same biological gender, applied for, and because of the policy, were denied work as security officers in the DGD. Both applicants have sterling character references, love urban life and have deeply prepared (both have urban sociology degrees) for a life of service to urban residents. They are furious that their applications have been summarily rejected for reasons that have nothing to with their qualifications or capacity to perform. They have sued. Meanwhile, the DGD board has been busy attacking another problem. There have been several incidents of violence in the district the last several weeks, including gun shootings, which have resulted in serious injury and even death. Most of these incidents involve groups of teenagers and young adults who are members of local street gangs. These incidents have all happened around dark. The antipathy between and the penchant for violence of these gangs is so strong that if members of one gang see a group of young people wearing the colors of their rivals in a contested area, they are likely to attack, setting off a melee. (Wearing one’s colors in an area that is not part of your territory is a serious sign of disrespect.) In order to prevent conflict and keep public order, the board has passed an ordinance that prevents the wearing of any clothing of a particular and specified shade of red and another of blue (the gangs are very particular about their chosen color) in the district after 8:00 pm until 6:00 am the next morning, a time in which, during most of the year, will be dark. (There is an exception for on-duty employees whose work uniform contains the restricted colors.) The board reasons that eliminating the most obvious and fast-starting cause of conflict will reduce the probability of violence. While the board understands that people in this country are not used to having the government tell them where and when they can wear certain clothes, this situation is different. A group of young adult downtown residents who care deeply about their appearance as part of demonstrating their identity are outraged and have sued. You are a law clerk to the federal judge who has been assigned to hear all these lawsuits. Write a memorandum discussing all the legal issues raised by the claims made by the non-owning downtown residents regarding the state DGD statute; the claims of the two applicants for a position for security officer in the district; and the claims raised by the group of young adult downtown residents regarding the clothing ordinance. Make sure to fully explain the arguments for both sustaining and striking down the alleged government actions regarding all of these issues. Please do not discuss any areas of law that were not covered in the course