The ninth circuit gets on right

[CARLHAYDEN]

The ninth circuit, aka the nutty ninth, occasionally gets it right.  Such actions are so rare, they need to be acknowledged.

Orozco v. City of Yuma (2011)

Case: 09-15422 07/12/2011 Page: 1 of 19 ID: 7815946 DktEntry: 55-1

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

It'd help if when you don't post a link you at least post the official short form of the case title,
Centro Familiar v. City of Yuma.

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2011/07/12/09-15422.pdf

Based on what's there, it seems to be straightforward and correctly decided.  However, reading between the lines of the decision, if the ordinance had been worded differently so that it had specifically applied to uses that would have invoked the 300-foot liquor license ban rather than religious uses, in general, I think the judges here would have upheld the decision of the district court, and rightly so.

[bullmoose88]

It'd help if when you don't post a link you at least post the official short form of the case title,
Centro Familiar v. City of Yuma.

Ernest is strong with the blue book rule 10.2.1.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

It'd help if when you don't post a link you at least post the official short form of the case title,
Centro Familiar v. City of Yuma.

Ernest is strong with the blue book rule 10.2.1.

Not really, as I just used the one on the head of the pages of the opinion when I finally located it.  Googling Centro Familiar v. City of Yuma produces much more helpful links than does Orozco v. City of Yuma.

[Verily]

Stupidly legalistic. They based the entire decision on the fact that the Yuma statute said "religious organizations" and "education organizations" instead of the more precise "churches and schools" even though the latter is clearly what the city meant. The court made it pretty clear that they would have found the other way if the other language were used.

Newsflash, 9th Circuit: You shouldn't read one legislature's definitions of terms into another legislature's use of terms.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The thing is Verily, what if Arizona changed the portion of its liquor law concerning what would would trigger the 300-foot exclusion zone, and/or the size of said zone. While the law Yuma crafted was almost certainly intended to deal with the exclusion zone and a desire to avoid any impinging on the entertainment district, the way it was worded caused it to not have that effect.

[Verily]

The thing is Verily, what if Arizona changed the portion of its liquor law concerning what would would trigger the 300-foot exclusion zone, and/or the size of said zone. While the law Yuma crafted was almost certainly intended to deal with the exclusion zone and a desire to avoid any impinging on the entertainment district, the way it was worded caused it to not have that effect.

The court's duty is to interpret the ordinance. They could have interpreted the ordinance in line with the clear intent of the Yuma City Council, i.e., to deal only with those activities that would trigger the Arizona law. (Laws can use different words to say the same thing, particularly when they are drafted by entirely separate legislatures.) Or they could have come up with an unreasonable interpretation that was clearly not the intent of the Yuma City Council and strike the law down. They chose the latter, and provided no rationale for that decision.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The court's duty is to interpret the ordinance. They could have interpreted the ordinance in line with the clear intent of the Yuma City Council, i.e., to deal only with those activities that would trigger the Arizona law. (Laws can use different words to say the same thing, particularly when they are drafted by entirely separate legislatures.) Or they could have come up with an unreasonable interpretation that was clearly not the intent of the Yuma City Council and strike the law down. They chose the latter, and provided no rationale for that decision.

Probable intent is not the same as clear intent.  Nor is the ordinance that was written the same as what you see as the clear intent of the law.  If Arizona had decided that churches no longer triggered a liquor-license exclusion, the Yuma ordinance would have still excluded churches.  If Arizona added strip-clubs to the list of what would have generated a liquor license exclusion zone, then the ordinance wouldn't have limited them.  (Don't laugh, strip clubs are often subject to restrictions on alcohol licensing and vice versa.)

I'd much rather have courts deal with the actual wording of the law rather than trying to second guess legislative intent.