A Cincinnati law that bans former drug offenders from Over-the-Rhine is unconstitutional, a federal appeals court ruled Thursday.

        The 2-1 decision by the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals will likely end the six-year legal battle over Cincinnati's “drug exclusion zone,” an area that was off-limits to anyone with a history of drug offenses.

        The zone was created in 1996 when City Council approved it in hopes of slowing the drug trade in one of the city's most crime-ridden neighborhoods. But the law quickly came under attack by civil libertarians and was ruled unconstitutional by two lower courts.

        The decision Thursday upheld those rulings, concluding that the exclusion zone punis hes people a second time for the same offense.

        In its majority opinion, written by Chief Judge Boyce F. Martin Jr., the appeals court also found that the zone infringes on freedom of association and unfairly limits a person's right to move freely in a public area.

        “While we have every confidence that the city acted in the utmost good faith and with the best intentions,” Judge Martin wrote, “the ordinance, in its present form, does not withstand constitutional scrutiny.”

        City lawyers could not be reached for comment Thursday, but they have argued that the zone is a legal and effective way to combat drug trafficking.

        In recent months, however, some council members have suggested the city should consider alternatives to the exclusion zone, such as more limited bans on travel that could be part of an offender's probation.

        Cincinnati's law allowed the city to ban anyone arrested for drug crimes for up to 90 days. Those convicted of drug offenses were banned for a year.

        The law was challenged by Patricia Johnson and Michael Au France, who claimed the exclusion zone violated their rights. Ms. Johnson said the law prevented her from visiting her grandchildren in Over-the-Rhine, and Mr. Au France said it barred him from meeting with his lawyer, who had an office in the neighborhood.

        The American Civil Liberties Union, which filed the original lawsuit, praised the ruling Thursday and expressed hope that the city would drop its appeals. “The city cannot simply banish people from their own homes without trial,” said Raymond Vasvari, legal director of the ACLU of Ohio.

        City lawyers may ask the appeals court for another hearing before the full court, or they may appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Hagan lectures boycott leader
Rainfall from Isidore helps quench drought
Middletown hospital picks new campus site
Author of 'hit' note found
Anderson YMCA celebrates 30 years
Another court strikes down anti-drug zone
Board's makeup in dispute
Children's debuts tech treatment
Deputy on the mend
New K.I. ride may result in 'delirium'
Obituary: C. Maiorano, 19, died on the way to Lourdes
Street named for riverfront 'visionary'
Tristate A.M. Report
BRONSON: They're sorry
SMITH AMOS: Recruiting from school
Hamilton gets ready to rally
Marketing plan pleases suburbs
New church will be a 'sermon in stone'
Boxer Mike Tyson wants tax money back
Former aide to Traficant sentenced for perjury
Col. Sanders he isn't - but it's close
Conner lawyer talking to feds
Court says deputy merit boards OK
Kentucky News Briefs
New radar system to warn of incursions