1. In this case, the court will probably rule that the ordinance is

A retail vendor of ice cream products qualifies for this exemption and is the only food vendor that does. A yogurt retailer has a business similar to the ice cream vendor, but the yogurt vendor has been selling to the public directly from trucks located on the streets of the city only for the past ten years. The yogurt vendor filed suit in an appropriate federal district court to enjoin the enforcement of this ordinance on the ground that it denies the yogurt vendor the equal protection of the laws.

A city has had a severe traffic problem on its streets. As a result, it enacted an ordinance prohibiting all sales to the public of food or other items by persons selling directly from trucks, cars, or other vehicles located on city streets. The ordinance included an inseverable grandfather provision exempting from its prohibition vendors who, for 20 years or more, have continuously sold food or other items from such vehicles located on the streets of the city.

Constitutional, because it is narrowly tailored to implement the city's compelling interest in reducing traffic congestion and, therefore, satisfies the strict scrutiny test applicable to such cases
Constitutional, because its validity is governed by the rational basis test, and the courts consistently defer to economic choices embodied in such legislation if they are even plausibly justifiable
Unconstitutional, because the nexus between the legitimate purpose of the ordinance and the conduct it prohibits is so tenuous and its provisions are so underinclusive that the ordinance fails to satisfy the substantial relationship test applicable to such cases
Unconstitutional, because economic benefits or burdens imposed by legislatures on the basis of grandfather provisions have consistently been declared invalid by courts as <em>per se</em> violations of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment

SkipNext »

Show clarification Download PDF

When neither a suspect class nor a fundamental right is implicated by a statute, courts review the classification with extreme deference and a heavy presumption of constitutionality. Most general «economic» and «social welfare» legislation falls within this limited review category. Under the rational basis standard, a law will be upheld if it is conceivable that there is some rational relation between the means selected by the legislature and a legitimate legislative objective. Although the legislature's purpose or objective in enacting a statute must be legitimate, courts give extreme deference to the legislature's right to define its objectives. So long as there is at least one conceivable objective that is legitimate and rationally related to the means, courts will uphold the regulation.

B is correct. The ordinance is constitutional because it is an economic regulation and does not implicate a suspect class or fundamental right, thus triggering the «mere-rationality» review. This choice correctly indicates that courts will give extreme deference to the choices by local legislatures regarding economic laws, even if the justification is merely plausible. The city's interest in reducing its extreme traffic problem is conceivably legitimate and prohibiting direct food sales on the streets is rationally related to that end.

A is incorrect. This answer reaches the correct answer with the wrong reasoning. Although the ordinance will be found to be constitutional, it is not because it is narrowly tailored to the city's compelling state interest. In fact, the court may not necessarily find that reducing traffic congestion amounts to a compelling interest. Nevertheless, strict scrutiny is not the correct standard to apply here because the ordinance is an economic regulation, which involves neither a suspect class or a fundamental right. Therefore, as explained above, the ordinance is constitutional because it satisfies the mere-rationality test.

C is incorrect. This choice articulates the incorrect standard of review to apply. The applicable test is not the «substantial relationship» test, but the mere-rationality standard. Furthermore, it is not clear that the limitation of street vendors to those in business for 20 years is so tenuous and under-inclusive that it would not satisfy a substantial relationship test.

D is incorrect. This is a misstatement of the law. Such economic burdens are not per se violations of equal protection. In fact, economic regulations imposed by legislatures do not involve fundamental rights or suspect classifications, which means that courts will apply extreme deference and presume that such measures are constitutional, not unconstitutional.

Comments (0)

There are no comments at the moment. If you found an error or think question is incorrect, tell everyone about it

1. In this case, the court will probably rule that the ordinance is

Comments (0)

Trial period expired