Patricia Johnson Michael Au France v. City of Cincinnati Case Brief
Complete case briefs with LSD+
Every LSD.Law brief pairs a full IRAC analysis with opinion summaries at three levels of depth, written by a team of Harvard Law and MIT graduates - a quick synopsis when you are pressed for time, the complete reasoning when you need to go deep.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: A city ordinance excluding individuals arrested for drug offenses from a designated neighborhood was struck down. The court found the ordinance violated fundamental rights to intrastate travel and freedom of association and was not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest.
Legal Significance: This case is significant for formally recognizing a fundamental right to intrastate travel (“to travel locally through public spaces and roadways”) under the Fourteenth Amendment’s substantive due process protection within the Sixth Circuit, and applying strict scrutiny to a law infringing upon it.
Patricia Johnson Michael Au France v. City of Cincinnati Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
The City of Cincinnati enacted an ordinance creating “drug-exclusion zones” to combat high rates of drug crime. The ordinance barred any individual arrested for a specified drug offense within a zone from entering any public street or sidewalk in that zone for 90 days (or one year upon conviction). Plaintiff Patricia Johnson was arrested in the “Over the Rhine” zone, and although the grand jury declined to indict her, she remained excluded. This prevented her from caring for her grandchildren who lived in the zone. Plaintiff Michael Au France, a homeless man, was also excluded following multiple arrests and convictions. His exclusion prevented him from accessing social services and his attorney’s office, both located within the zone. The ordinance provided a variance mechanism for residents and employees of the zone, but neither plaintiff qualified. They challenged the ordinance as a violation of their fundamental rights under the Fourteenth Amendment.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does a municipal ordinance that excludes individuals arrested for or convicted of drug offenses from a designated public neighborhood violate the fundamental rights to intrastate travel and freedom of association protected by the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause?
Yes. The ordinance is unconstitutional because it infringes upon the fundamental rights Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad
IRAC Legal Analysis
About IRAC analysis
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the structure professors expect in exam answers. Each LSD.Law brief states the issue, the governing rule with citations, the court's application of that rule, and the conclusion - the same reasoning pattern you will use on exams and in practice.
Legal Issue
Does a municipal ordinance that excludes individuals arrested for or convicted of drug offenses from a designated public neighborhood violate the fundamental rights to intrastate travel and freedom of association protected by the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause?
Conclusion
This decision establishes the fundamental right to intrastate travel in the Sixth Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim
Legal Rule
The Constitution protects a fundamental right to travel locally through public spaces Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit a
Legal Analysis
The court first established that the plaintiffs' claims were properly analyzed under Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmo
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- The Sixth Circuit recognized a fundamental **right to travel locally through