Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): to the County. 2. Plaintiffs’ substantive due process challenge also fails. When, as here, plaintiffs “rely on substantive due process to challenge governmental action that does not impinge on fundamental rights,” courts “merely look to see whether the government could have had a legitimate reason for acting as it did.” Halverson, 42 F.3d at 1262 (internal quotation marks omitted). The County has put forward a rational justification for the retroactive nature of the Ordinance—ensuring compliance with Clark County Code § 8.04.040(B)(3)’s requirement that the gambling permitted by Class A Slot Machine Licenses remains merely “incidental” to the licensee’s primary business purpose. See Pension Benefit Guar. Corp. v. R.A. Gray & Co., 467 U.S. 717, 730, 104 S.Ct. 2709, 81 L.Ed.2d 601 (1984) (<HOLDING>). 3. The Ordinance does not violate the Equal 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the act is retroactive (B) holding retroactive application (C) holding that retroactive aspects of legislation must satisfy due process a burden met simply by showing that the retroactive application of the legislation is itself justified by a rational legislative purpose (D) holding no retroactive application (E) recognizing a presumption against retroactive legislation
Output (English): holding no retroactive application