Court allows Council Bluffs' pit bull ban to stand, despite arguments the law is unconstitutionally vague

Council Bluffs officials did not violate the rights of dog owners when they banned keeping pit bulls and similar dogs within the city, a federal appeals court has affirmed.

The city's ordinance, which took effect in 2005, bans owning, keeping or selling pit bulls, defined in the law as any "American Pit Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, Staffordshire Bull Terrier," or any dog with "the majority of physical traits" of one of those breeds.

The ruling last week by the St. Louis-based Eighth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals came in a May 2020 suit filed by a group of residents working with the nonprofit Animal Farm Foundation, arguing the law was unconstitutional. It affirmed a district court judgment.

A suit by the group against a similar law in Sioux City, filed in 2016, ended with the repeal of that city's ban. But Council Bluffs held its ground.

"The City of Council Bluffs is pleased that the Court of Appeals confirmed that the ordinance is rationally related to the city’s duty to provide for public safety and welfare concerning dog bites," attorney Sara Bauer said. "The city hopes the matter is concluded but will continue to defend the matter as needed."

Animal Farm Foundation, which advocates to end breed-specific dog restrictions, said it isn't ready to give up the fight.

"We respectfully disagree with the court's decision on its merits," foundation treasurer Donald Cleary said in a statement. "We do consider this case appealable. We are currently considering all of our options, and we will always do what we feel is best for people and their pets."

Is a pit bull ban 'rational'?

In a court filing, the plaintiffs alleged the city's definition of "pit bull" was unconstitutionally vague and that the city had used it against dogs that were not of the specified breeds. Some said they had non-pit bull dogs that they feared would be similarly forbidden by city animal control.

Several reported they had been forced to send their dogs to new homes with friends in other cities or states, or in one case had moved out of the city themselves to prevent the city from seizing and euthanizing their pets.

More:Homeless Iowa City man charged after his sick dog died on hot day sentenced to time served

The city said the law was enacted after pit bulls "accounted for a disproportionate number of dog bites" in 2003 and 2004, and that dog bites had declined after the ban and remained 25% lower than pre-ban numbers 15 years later.

Unlike the right to own a gun or practice a religion, owning a particular breed of dog is not considered a core constitutional right, and both sides agreed the legal standard for the law was whether the city had a "rational basis" to adopt it. The plaintiffs argued it didn't, and offered evidence they said showed pit bulls were no more dangerous than other breeds, and that even trained observers frequently misidentify a dog's predominant breed.

Court: Not our place to second-guess policy

But in Thursday's opinion, Judge Duane Benton, who wrote for the three-judge panel, said even the plaintiffs' evidence showed the city had rational arguments it could point to.

"The dog owners admit that behavior — to some extent — is heritable," Benton wrote, adding that a study finding only a 15% success rate in visually identifying dog breeds still supports the city's ordinance. "This study affirms that visual identifications can, however imperfectly, identify a dog’s breed. While the city’s decision to ban all pit bulls may result in some inequalities, this does not make the ordinance irrational."

While the alleged ambiguity in the city's ordinance might represent an argument for better policy, it does not make it unconstitutional, the court found.

"The city had a conceivable basis to believe banning pit bulls would promote the health and safety of Council Bluff citizens," Benton wrote. "... The city had to decide where to draw the line on which breeds to ban. While the resulting ordinance may be an imperfect fit, this court cannot second-guess or judge the fairness oflegislative choices on rational basis review."

Watchdog:Pit bull attacks prompt renewed debate: Are certain breeds dangerous, or just certain dogs?

Sioux City and Council Bluffs aren't the only Iowa cities that have breed-specific legislation on the books. In July, the tiny town of Keystone in eastern Iowa made headlines when officials sought to enforce a decades-old pit bull ban. Des Moines does not ban pit bulls, but classifies them as "high risk" and requires owners to carry additional insurance and follow other regulations.

Despite their reputation, pit bulls remain popular family pets in Iowa, and the Animal Rescue League of Iowa and other organizations have advocated to end restrictions on their ownership. State legislators in their last session introduced bills that would ban local breed-specific ordinances, but none made it to the governor's desk.

William Morris covers courts for the Des Moines Register. He can be contacted at wrmorris2@registermedia.com, 715-573-8166 or on Twitter at @DMRMorris.