‘Blooming Ridiculous’: Missouri Woman Allergic, Must Plant Grass

ST. PETERS, MO — When it's in full bloom, Carl and Janice Duffner’s lawn looks like a Claude Monet landscape. There isn’t a blade of grass among the various flowers, shrubs and bushes growing in their yard, for good reason: Janice has a severe allergy to grass.

But that’s not good enough for a federal judge, who threw out the Duffners’ lawsuit against the city of St. Peters. The Duffners’ entire yard is a flower garden — eye-catching, maybe, but in violation of a city turf grass ordinance that requires St. Peters residents to plant at least 50 percent of their yards in lawn grasses. Because of Janice’s allergy, they were granted a variance in 2014, but were still required to plant 5 percent of their yard to turf grass.

Allergy or not, the Duffners could be fined more than $180,000 and go to prison for 20 years if they don’t acquiesce.

Their Freedom Center of Missouri lawyer, Dave Roland, called U.S. District Judge John Ross’ ruling “blooming ridiculous” and said it violated the Duffner’s constitutional rights under the Eighth Amendment and said it leaves residents of St. Peters vulnerable to government overreach. It could lead to residents

“This is one of the most bizarre laws I have ever seen,” Roland, the director of litigation for the Freedom Center of Missouri, said in a statement. “There is absolutely nothing unlawful or harmful about the Duffners’ flowers, yet St. Peters is threatening them with extraordinary fines and decades in prison simply because they choose to grow flowers instead of a plant that makes them sick.”

The Duffners filed the federal lawsuit after losing a case against the city in state court. They argued the turf grass ordinance was "unnecessary for the advancement of any compelling or permissible state objective” and “imposes a permanent obligation on the owner to cultivate and maintain that unwanted physical presence on their property for no reason other than the government commands it.”

An unchecked government could require residents to dig swimming pools or put up holiday light shows to bolster property values, the Duffners and their attorney argued.

Ross said in the 17-page ruling that the Duffners “failed to identify a fundamental right that is restricted by the Turf Grass Ordinance.”

Rolands said he would appeal the ruling to the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

“If a city can compel citizens to devote half of their property to growing a plant that the citizen does not want and that makes them sick, there is no longer any principled limit to the government’s control over private property,” he said in the statement. “Likewise, if governments can impose such ridiculous penalties for completely harmless behaviors, the Eighth Amendment is practically useless. We are confident that the Eighth Circuit will reverse this terrible decision.”

The Duffners’ lawn is landscaped and well maintained, Rolands said, describing their property as a “grass-free flower garden that includes a landscaped hillside and flowers blooming from multiple mulched planting areas that are interspersed with walkways, sitting areas, and two small ponds.”

Photo via Shutterstock