Bloomington sits in Monroe County, Indiana, about 50 miles south of Indianapolis. It is home to Indiana University and roughly 80,000 people. The city has long written rules that reach past ordinary municipal housekeeping and into the details of how residents and businesses operate.

On November 4, 2026, the Bloomington Common Council voted 7-0 to pass Ordinance 2026-29. The measure adds a new chapter to the city’s Peace and Safety code. It prohibits the distribution and deployment of “superintelligence” into any premises in Bloomington. The definition covers systems that significantly outperform humans on essentially all cognitive tasks, possess agency, and can modify their own algorithms or operate without continuous human oversight. The ban reaches remote use through a browser, app, or API even when the servers sit outside the city. An amendment adopted the same night states that ordinary end-user access by Bloomington residents is not covered. The ordinance is not a general ban on existing AI tools.

Councilmember Dave Rollo sponsored the measure. He described it as an interim public-safety step during a period when neither the state nor the federal government has set rules for the technology. The technology itself has not been built. The ordinance has not taken effect. It still requires the signature of Mayor Kerry Thomson and any required publication.

The practical detail that matters is enforcement

Violations fall under the municipal code’s general penalty provision. That allows fines of up to $2,500 for each day a violation continues. The city’s Department of Law and the Bloomington Police Department may seek civil penalties, ask a court for an injunction, or refer a matter to the Monroe County prosecutor. Rollo’s staff memorandum states that the ordinance “gives the city complete enforcement discretion.” The text itself says the city has no mandatory duty to prevent or abate every violation. Enforcement is optional. The city decides when, against whom, and on what evidence.

That discretion is the operative feature. A broad definition of superintelligence, combined with a remote-deployment clause and no criteria for when the city must act, leaves the decision to city officials. A company that offers tools the council dislikes can be placed under the daily fine. A local business that uses advanced software can be told to stop or face accumulating penalties. A news outlet or critic that deploys a tool the council prefers to characterize as superintelligent can be threatened with the same. The ordinance creates no authorization process and names no official who decides in advance what is allowed. Every system is unauthorized until the city chooses otherwise.

Prior pattern of broad local rules

This is not the first time the council has written broad local rules and left the application to later judgment.

In September 2026, federal and state lawsuits accused the City of Bloomington and its Department of Housing and Neighborhood Development of using “weaponized” inspections and steep fines against private landlords. The complaints alleged that hyper-technical enforcement depressed private rental values while the city expanded its own housing holdings. The city has also moved against private tenants in the Showers West building, claiming an inverse-condemnation theory allowed it to end leases without formal eminent domain so the space could be used for government offices. A Monroe County judge rejected that approach in March 2026.

In October 2026 the same council voted 7-0 to ban city agencies from acquiring or using automated license-plate readers and from accessing data collected by third parties. The administration had asked for a narrower approach. Police had previously cited the cameras in investigations that included recovery of a kidnapping victim and identification of suspects in violent crimes. The ordinance restricted access even when the data originated outside the city. The council has also spent months on the process for removing an advisory member of the Historic Preservation Commission after allegations of code-of-conduct and Open Door Law issues, referring the matter to committee and postponing votes.

The structure of the ban

The pattern is consistent. The council writes a prohibition with wide reach, states that enforcement is discretionary, and retains the ability to select the targets. Ordinance 2026-29 fits the same structure. It does not create a mandatory duty to police every possible superintelligence. It creates the legal basis for daily fines of $2,500 against whatever person or business the city decides has crossed the line. The technology does not exist. The penalty power does.

The ordinance is written to expire 91 days after the Indiana General Assembly enacts a comprehensive framework for provably safe superintelligence. In the absence of state action, the council can lift the ban by later ordinance after finding a broad scientific consensus of safety. An earlier draft had required approval by more than 95 percent of registered voters; that threshold was removed by amendment. The remaining conditions still leave the decision with the same body that passed the ban.

Bloomington has a record of using local code to shape commercial activity and to constrain private actors who fall outside the council’s preferences. Ordinance 2026-29 adds a new chapter to that record. The practical detail is not the definition of a technology that has not been built. It is the complete enforcement discretion that lets the city choose when to apply a $2,500-a-day fine and against whom. That is the tool the ordinance actually supplies.