§ 102A.003.Remedies

The remedies, and the asymmetry between the two sides is deliberate.

A claimant is entitled to recover declaratory and injunctive relief and costs and reasonable attorney’s fees.

Note what is absent: damages. A claimant who has lost money complying with an invalid ordinance recovers none of it — the remedy is to stop the ordinance operating.

That confines the chapter to its purpose. It exists to keep local government within the fields the state has left to it, not to compensate for regulation.

"Is entitled to recover" is stronger than a discretionary award. A successful claimant gets the relief and the fees rather than asking for them.

The fee entitlement is what makes the chapter usable. A challenge to a municipal ordinance costs more than most businesses would spend to stop a rule affecting one of many locations, and without recoverable fees few would be brought.

The municipality or county recovers only on a finding that the action is frivolous, and then only costs and reasonable attorney’s fees.

So the two sides are not symmetrical. A claimant who wins recovers fees; a local government that wins recovers nothing unless the claim was frivolous.

That allocation is a considered one. Symmetrical fee shifting would deter meritorious challenges, since a business facing the possibility of paying a city’s legal costs will usually comply instead.

The frivolousness exception preserves a check, so the chapter cannot be used to harass a local government without any risk.