Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-87-02668/USCOURTS-ca10-87-02668-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 

---

( 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

CLl:flK 

,uiteb jtates Qlourt of J\ppeafs 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

OFFICE OF THE CLERK 

C404 UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE 

DENVER, COLORADO 80294 

November 30,_ 1989 

TO ALL RECIPIENTS OF THE CAPTIONED OPINION 

RE: No. 87-2627 Oklahoma Education v. Alcoholic Beverage 

No. 87-2668 Oklahoma Education v. Alcoholic Beverage 

(D.C. No. CIV 86-1581-T) 

Filed November 7, 1989, by Judge Tacha 

Enclosed is a new page 7 which should be substituted for 

_page 7 in the opinion filed November 7, 1989, in the 

captioned cases. 

Enclosure 

PF:oac 

Very?flY yours, 

ROBtRT L. HOEqK 

\ Uqtitr 

By . Patric \ . k F' h 1.s 

Chief Deputy 

TELEPHONE 

1303) 844·31!57 

IFTSl !564·3157 

Appellate Case: 87-2668 Document: 010110064996 Date Filed: 11/30/1989 Page: 1 
No. 87-2627, ~7-2668 

Filed November 7, 1989 by Judge Tacha 

employment differently from cases in which the right is asserted 

under the privileges and immunities clause. In the equal 

protection clause context, the Supreme Court has never recognized 

a fundamental right to pursue a particular line of employment. 

See United Bldg., 465 U.S. at 219 (no fundamental right to 

government employment under the equal protection clause); 

Massachusetts Bd. of Retirement"!...!. Murgia, 427 U.S. 307, 313 

(1976) (same); see also Edelstein Y.!. Wilentz, 812 F.2d 128, 132 

(3d Cir. 1987) (citing Murgia, 427 U.S. at 313) ("The Constitution 

does not create fundamental interests in particular types of 

employment."). Rather, the Supreme Court applies a rational 

relationship test to state legislation restricting employment 

opportunities when the restrictions are not based on suspect or 

quasi-suspect classifications. See Murgia, 427 U.S. at 312-15; 

Dandridge Y.!_ Williams, 397 U.S. 471, 485 and note 17 (1970) 

("{rational relationship] standard[] has been consistently 

applied to state legislation restricting the availability of 

employment opportunities."). 

The Supreme Court's most recent definition of fundamental 

rights under the fourteenth amendment is in San Antonio School 

Independent District"!...!. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1 (1973). The 

Rodriguez plaintiffs contended that the Texas system for financing 

public schools violated the equal protection clause because per 

pupil expenditures for school districts varied according to each 

school district's property tax base. The Rodriguez Court rejected 

the argument that the category of fundamental rights under the 

equal protection clause should be expanded to include.education: 

-7-

Appellate Case: 87-2668 Document: 010110064996 Date Filed: 11/30/1989 Page: 2