Fed. Dis Court of IA Grants Summary Judgement in Favor of City in Case Arising from Fireworks Ordinances Holding Local Zoning Ordinance were Not Preempted by State Law

This post was authored by Matthew Loeser, Esq.

Iowa enacted legislation permitting the sale and use of consumer fireworks for two designated periods each year. Following this, several Iowa cities enacted various ordinances regulating firework sales. In this case, a Nebraska corporation in the business of selling fireworks, Bellino Fireworks, Inc., brought this lawsuit against four cities requesting declaratory judgments that their ordinances were preempted by Iowa law, alleging the ordinances violated 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and contending the cities interfered with Bellino’s contracts and prospective business relationships.
Bellino first challenged Ankeny’s Ordinance as it related to zoning. Specifically, Bellino argued all municipal regulation of the sale of consumer fireworks was preempted by State law. Bellino claimed conflict preemption and field preemption applied to preempt Ankeny’s Ordinance restricting the sale of consumer fireworks to heavy industrial districts. Here, the court found that neither SF 489 nor HF 295 expressly preempted Ankeny’s Ordinance: Senate File 489 explicitly allowed cities to regulate the use of fireworks; and HF 295 pertained to zoning concerns regarding the use of a building, not the sale of merchandise, and therefore fell outside the prohibition of HF 295.
The court found that neither SF 489 nor HF 295 conflicted with Ankeny’s Ordinance as it related to zoning. Here, Ankeny’s Ordinance was not “irreconcilable’ with state law, as a licensed fireworks retailer could still sell fireworks in Ankeny’s industrial zones, pursuant to the other requirements set forth in SF 489 and under the state fire marshal’s rules. Furthermore, Senate File 489 did not dictate in which zones fireworks must or could be sold. Instead, it allowed for the sale of consumer fireworks and did contain any language, expressly or impliedly, limiting a city’s zoning power under Iowa Code chapter 414. Accordingly, the court found there was no conflict preemption.
Next, the court determined Ankeny’s Ordinance was not preempted under the doctrine of field preemption, as House File 295 did not indicate the legislature intended to cover the field of consumer merchandise as to preempt the local regulation over this subject. As such, there were no genuine issues of material fact Bellino could raise showing the Cities’ zoning ordinances were preempted.
As to the other provisions of Boone’s City Code Bellino challenges, found the court Bellino had not demonstrated these provisions of Boone’s City Code had been applied to it and did not allege an actual controversy for the Court to resolve. In its complaint, Bellino did not allege any of the miscellaneous provisions of Boone’s City Code caused it any injury, and did not present any evidence these provisions had been applied to it. Thus, even assuming Belino had standing to challenge these laws, Bellino failed to demonstrate a genuine dispute existed that these provisions were ‘irreconcilable with state law. The court therefore granted summary judgment in the Cities’ favor as to all claims against them.
Bellino Fireworks, Inc. v City of Ankeny, 2018 WL 3725759 (SD IA 7/19/2018)