NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

____________

No. 22

- 2141

______ SASSAMANSVILLE FIRE CO MPANY NO

. 1 , Appellant

v. MARIE LIVELSBERGER ; KURT ZEBROWSKI ; BOONE FLINT ; WILLIAM ROSS SNOOK ; GREGORY MASKREY; JAIME GWYNN ; NEW HANOVER TOWNSHIP

___________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Civil No. 2

- 21

- cv - 04648) District Judge: Honorable Chad F. Kenney

____________ Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L

. A

. R

. 34.1(a) March 21 , 2023

____________ Before: RESTREPO , PHIPPS, and ROTH , Circuit Judges

. (Opinion filed : May 25, 2023 )

___________

OPINION *

___________ PHIPPS, Circuit Judge

. A local fire department initiated this suit after a Pennsylvania township amended its township code to effectively eliminate the fire department. The fire departm ent

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full C ourt and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent.2 initially sued the to w nship, the individual members of its board of supervisors , and its manager in the Court of Common Pleas for Montgomery County

. Because the complaint included federal claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for substantive

- due

- process and equal

protection violations, the defendants remove d t he case to federal court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a); see also id. §§ 1331, 1343. Once in District Court , the fire department twice amended its complaint, and the defendants mo ved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) to dismiss not only the federal claims in that complaint but also the state

- law claims. The District Court granted that motion , dismiss ing the federal claims with prejudice and declining to exercise supp lemental jurisdiction over the state

- law claims. The fire department timely appealed that final order , and it now disputes the dismissal of its federal claims

. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291. On de novo review, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court.
F ACTUAL B ACKGROUND (A S A LLEGED IN THE C OMPLAINT )
For many years , New Hanover Township had two authorized fire departments

. Starting in 1948, the Sass a mansville Fire Company No. 1 provided fire protection services, and later in 1970, the New Hanover Townsh ip Volunteer Fire Company No. 1 began doing the same

. But in 2010, the township hired a consult ing firm to prepare a Fire Services
Assessment

. The firm conducted a four

- month review , and it reported that operational conflict s between the two departments detracted from response times and firefighting efforts. Often, New Hanover Township Volunteer Fire Company would arrive first

– due, in part, to closer proximity to high

- risk areas

– but when the Sass a mansville Fire Company ar rived , it would seek to take charge. The consult ing firm recommended a3 merger. Sass a mansville Fire Company initially resisted, but eventually relented , signing a resolution to memorialize the merger and transferr ing its fire house, equipment, and trucks to the merged entity. Despit e t h e merg er, New Hanover’s township c ode still authorized Sass a mansville Fire Company as a separate entit y. The merger did not go smoothly

. In December 2015, after a disagreement, New Hanover Township Volunteer Fire Company prohibited Sass a mansville Fire Company from participating in firefighting efforts. That led to litigation between the two fire departments in Pennsylvania s tate court . Although the fire departments resolved th at dispute through a settlement, New Hanover Township sought greater repose. Its b oard of

s upervisors discussed the issue at its public meetings, and they ultimately voted unanimously to amend the township code to remove Sass a mansville Fire Company as a
t ownship

- authorized fire department. Sass a mansville Fire Company then commenced this suit.
D ISCUSSION The township’s amendment to i t s code to delist Sass a mansville Fire Company is an economic regulation, which does not operate along suspect lines or infringe on fundamental rights. See F CC v. Beach Comm c’ns , Inc. , 508 U.S. 307, 31 3

– 1 4 (1993) ; City of New Orleans v. Dukes , 427 U.S. 297, 303 (1976) (per curiam )

. And when such legislation is challenged on either due

- process or equal

- protection grounds , it receives rational

- basis review

. See Williamson v. Lee Optical of Oklahoma Inc. , 348 U.S. 483,
488

– 89 (1955) ; Nicholas v. Penn

. State Univ. , 227 F.3d 133, 139 (3d Cir. 2000 )

. Under
th at standard, the challenged gove rnmental action will be upheld if it is rationally related to a legitimate governmental purpose

. See Williamson , 348 U.S. at 488 (“It is enough that there is an evil at hand for correction, and th at it might be thought that the particular4 legislative measure was a rational way to correct it.” (emphasis added)); Beach , 508 U.S. at 313; Heller v. Doe , 509 U.S. 312, 319 (1993); Stradfo rd v. Sec’y Pa. Dep’t of Corr. , 53 F.4th 67, 77 (3d Cir. 2022 )

. The township’s decision to delist Sass a mansville Fire Company clears that standard by a wide margin. It was rational for the township to conclude it did not need
two competing fire departments. And there was at least one conceivable reason for eliminating Sass a mansville Fire Company and keeping the New Hanover Township Volunteer Fire Company : even before the merger, according to the Fire Services Assessment, the New Hanover Tow nship Volunteer Fire Company tended to arrive at the scene first. Unable to prevail on rational basis review , Sass a mansville Fire Company focus es instead on claims of unethical lawyering and purported legislative bias related to the merger and delist ing

. Thi s contention has no traction as a matter of constitutional dimension

. See Nekrilov v. City of Jersey City , 45 F.4th 662, 681 (3d Cir. 2022) (recognizing general principle that the “subjective intentions of the legislators are ‘constitutiona lly irrelevant’” for a substantive

- due

- process claim (quoting Flemming v.
Nestor , 363 U.S. 603, 612 (1960))). And in any event, these challenges sound more in procedural due process

– a claim that Sass a mansville Fire Company brought initially but does not pursue on appeal , as it challenges legislative action, not its rights in an adjudication. See Bi

- Metallic Inv. Co. v. State Bd. of Equalization , 239 U.S. 441, 445 (1915) (rejecting a procedural due process challenge to legislation) ; c f. Withrow v. Larkin , 421 U.S. 35, 46 (1975) (recognizing that the principle that a “fair trial in a fair tribunal is a basic requirement of due process ” applies also to administrative adjudi cations (quoting In re Murchison , 349 U.S. 133, 136 (1955)))

. Accordingly, those5 concerns cannot save its substantive

- due

- process and equal

- protection claims from dismissal under rational basis review

. * * *
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the District Court will be affirmed.