Federal judge dismisses lawsuit accusing city, state of unfairly targeting Asian and Arab ‘stop-and-go’ owners
The state was immune from the lawsuit, the judge wrote, and the association representing Arab and Asian deli owners didn't show that they were harmed by the policies under scrutiny.
A federal judge tossed out a lawsuit filed by associations representing Asian and Arab-owned businesses accusing Philadelphia and Pennsylvania agencies of alleged biased and selective enforcement actions against so-called stop-and-go shops.
The lawsuit contended that Arab and Asian American owners of the neighborhood stores that also sell and serve alcohol are being targeted by the state and the city. It alleged the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board, Pennsylvania State Police, and Attorney General Dave Sunday of selective enforcement of liquor regulations, and the city and Mayor Cherelle L. Parker for enacting curfew and nuisance laws that threaten to punish or shut down businesses for crimes in their vicinity.
The original complaint was filed in November in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania by Asian American Licensed Beverage Association of Philadelphia, Arab American Business and Professional Association of the Delaware Valley, and six deli owners.
» READ MORE: Philly, state liquor law enforcement unfairly targets Asian and Arab American ‘stop-and-go’ owners, lawsuit alleges
In his Tuesday opinion, U.S. District Judge Jeffrey Schmehl dismissed all 12 counts levied in the complaints, saying that the state agencies are protected from such litigation and the associations don’t have standing to bring claims against the city.
The state-level defendants argued that the lawsuit should be dismissed based on a constitutional protection for states, and agencies that act as arms of the state, from litigation in federal court. Schmehl agreed, and in addition dismissed AG Sunday as a defendant because his office doesn’t have a direct connection to enforcement of liquor regulations.
The city argued that the business associations that filed the complaints, and the delis that joined them, didn’t show that they were harmed by the policies that they called in the complaint “unlawful and discriminatory treatment.”
For example, none of the named delis in the complaint are in areas where the city’s curfew ordinance applies. The associations said in their complaint that “many” of their members are impacted, but didn’t provide any specifics, according to the judge’s opinion.
In addition, Schmehl noted that the lawsuit doesn’t provide specific examples of harm from the alleged unfair enforcement of laws. In one case cited in the complaint, the Riley Deli on the 7700 block of Ogontz Avenue received a citation in February 2024 after two people were arrested for selling drugs near the store. Officers at the scene allegedly warned a deli manager that if a similar incident happened again, the business could close.
But in this instance, as well as others mentioned in the lawsuit, no fines or intent-to-cease-operations notices were issued, and no deli shut down, Schmehl said.
The judge wrote that because the associations “failed to demonstrate a concrete harm” from inspection or enforcement activity, they lack standing to bring the lawsuit.
Kyle Garabedian, a Kang Haggerty attorney representing the business associations, noted that the judge didn’t comment on the merit of the claims in the lawsuit, and left the door open for a new lawsuit to be filed over the issue.
“Plaintiffs are reviewing their options in light of this order and important issues at stake in the litigation,” Garabedian said in a statement.
A spokesperson for the city’s law department said that the ordinances that came under scrutiny in the lawsuit “intended to guide business owners to be responsible stewards of our communities and prevent environmental hazard and crime.”
“The City of Philadelphia is committed to ensuring that enforcement of ordinances intended to address quality of life issues is equitable across the city,” the statement said.
The Attorney General’s office, which represented the state-level defendants, declined to comment.
» READ MORE: A brief history of a long effort to regulate stop-and-go stores
City and state agencies have been grappling for nearly half a century with stop-and-go establishments, which often have licenses to sell liquor and food, but rarely have indoor seating or bathrooms as a restaurant would. Community groups and neighbors of stop-and-gos have long viewed the establishments as nuisances that attract noise, public alcohol consumption, and violence.
Last year, Gov. Josh Shapiro created the Pennsylvania Stop-and-Go Legislative Task Force to study the issue. The task force outlined eight recommendations in an October report such as streamlining the citation process, increasing penalties, and hiring more Pennsylvania State Police Bureau of Liquor Control Enforcement agents to enforce existing regulations.
The lawsuit alleged the city and state work “in concert” against stop-and-gos by selectively targeting the businesses for enforcement of state liquor code violations, seeking to strip away liquor licenses, and passing city nuisance ordinances that target the owners.
“The overwhelming majority of the impacted businesses are owned by racial minorities, specifically Asian and Arab Americans,” the complaint says.
After the lawsuit was filed, a spokesperson for Gov. Josh Shapiro said that “the Shapiro Administration is committed to working with the General Assembly and the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board to ensure Pennsylvania law is applied appropriately and small businesses have the opportunity to succeed in our Commonwealth.”