## Facts

- The Arkansas General Assembly enacted Act 137 of 2015 (Intrastate Commerce Improvement Act) to ensure statewide uniformity in nondiscrimination laws affecting intrastate commerce.
- Act 137 barred counties and municipalities from adopting or enforcing measures that “create[] a protected classification or prohibit[] discrimination on a basis not contained in state law.”
- The Fayetteville City Council enacted Ordinance 5781, which extended local nondiscrimination protections to include “sexual orientation” and “gender identity,” and equated those protections to classifications listed in the Arkansas Civil Rights Act.
- The ordinance was approved by Fayetteville voters in a special election.
- A local group and individual plaintiffs filed suit seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging Ordinance 5781 violated Act 137; the State of Arkansas intervened.
- The circuit court ruled the ordinance did not violate Act 137, accepting the City’s argument that sexual orientation and gender identity were “contained in state law” through references in other Arkansas statutes.
- Plaintiffs and the State appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether Ordinance 5781 violated Act 137 by creating protected classifications or prohibiting discrimination on bases not contained in state law.
2. Whether statutory references to sexual orientation or gender identity in limited contexts meant those bases were “contained in state law” for purposes of Act 137.
3. Whether the ordinance was invalid due to direct inconsistency with Act 137’s requirement of statewide uniformity.

## Decision

- The Arkansas Supreme Court reversed and remanded.
- The court held Ordinance 5781 violated Act 137 because it extended local discrimination protections to “sexual orientation” and “gender identity,” classifications not previously included under state nondiscrimination law.
- The court rejected the City’s reliance on other statutes that referenced these characteristics in specific settings, concluding those references did not establish statewide protected classifications for nondiscrimination purposes.
- The court determined the ordinance created a nonuniform nondiscrimination obligation in Fayetteville that did not exist under state law, producing a direct conflict with Act 137.

## Legal Principles

- When a statute’s text is clear, courts apply its plain meaning to determine legislative intent.
- Under Act 137, a municipality may not adopt or enforce an ordinance that creates a protected classification or prohibits discrimination on a basis not contained in state law.
- Statutory mention of a characteristic in limited regulatory contexts does not, by itself, make that characteristic a statewide protected classification for general nondiscrimination obligations.
- A municipal ordinance that imposes nondiscrimination duties beyond those recognized by state law is directly inconsistent with Act 137 and is preempted.

## Conclusion

The Arkansas Supreme Court held that Fayetteville’s ordinance adding sexual orientation and gender identity to local nondiscrimination protections conflicted with Act 137’s mandate of statewide uniformity and therefore was invalid, requiring reversal of the circuit court and remand for further proceedings.


Protect Fayetteville v. City of Fayetteville, 510 S.W.3d 258 (Ark. 2017)