Ark. Code Ann. § 14-1-403 (2026)
Prohibited conduct
- A county, municipality, or other political subdivision of the state shall not adopt or enforce an ordinance, resolution, rule, or policy that creates a protected classification or prohibits discrimination on a basis not contained in state law.
- This section does not apply to a rule or policy that pertains only to the employees of a county, municipality, or other political subdivision.
History. Acts 2015, No. 137, § 1.
Publisher's Notes. Acts 2015, No. 137 became law without the Governor's signature.
Research References
U. Ark. Little Rock L. Rev.
John M. A. DiPippa, Essay: Bias in Disguise: The Constitutional Problems of Arkansas’s Intrastate Commerce Improvement Act, 37 U. Ark. Little Rock L. Rev. 469 (2015).
Case Notes
Ordinance Invalid.
City of Fayetteville Ordinance 5781 violated the Intrastate Commerce Improvement Act, § 14-1-401 et seq., by extending the city's discrimination laws to include two classifications not previously included under state law, i.e., sexual orientation and gender identity, thereby creating a nonuniform nondiscrimination law. Protect Fayetteville v. City of Fayetteville, 2017 Ark. 49, 510 S.W.3d 258 (2017).
Ark. Const., Art. 12, § 4, states that “[n]o municipal corporation shall be authorized to pass any laws contrary to the general laws of the state”, and case law has held that municipal corporations have only the power bestowed on them by statute or the state constitution; therefore, city ordinances that conflict with state statutes are void under the Arkansas Constitution. Protect Fayetteville v. City of Fayetteville, 2019 Ark. 30, 565 S.W.3d 477 (2019).
Supreme Court's prior opinion and mandate operated as a binding adjudication that a Fayetteville ordinance violated Acts 2015, No. 137, codified as § 14-1-401 et seq., which prohibits a county, municipality, or other political subdivision of the state from adopting or enforcing an ordinance, resolution, rule, or policy that creates a protected classification or prohibits discrimination on a basis not contained in state law. Because the circuit court exceeded its jurisdiction on remand in denying appellants' motion for a preliminary injunction enjoining enforcement of the ordinance, its actions following remand were void. Protect Fayetteville v. City of Fayetteville, 2019 Ark. 30, 565 S.W.3d 477 (2019).