Opinion ID: 1815835
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Did the ordinance violate the equal protection clause?

Text: Nor are we persuaded by Kent's argument that the ordinance violates the equal protection clause by treating persons who wish to possess a lion as a pet differently than those who wish to possess a lion for research, education, or reproductive purposes. Because no fundamental right or suspect class is involved in Kent's challenge, the proper level of scrutiny is rational basis. The challenged classification must be sustained unless the challenging party can demonstrate that it is patently arbitrary and bears no rational relationship to a legitimate governmental interest. Under the rational basis test, a legislative classification is upheld if any conceivable state of facts reasonably justify it. Bishop v. Eastern Allamakee Community School District, 346 N.W.2d 500, 505 (Iowa 1984) (citation omitted). Kent failed to meet this heavy burden. The ban on private ownership of dangerous animals is rationally related to the board's duty to promote the public safety and welfare. Moreover, the board's distinction between holding these animals as pets and holding them for other purposes is rationally related to the legitimate goal of public safety. The board could reasonably determine the benefit to society gained from limited exceptions for research, education, and reproduction of endangered species outweighs the threat to public safety. Similarly, the board could determine the same societal benefit cannot be derived from individual pet ownership, and therefore, such ownership does not outweigh the potential threat to public safety.