Opinion ID: 2034071
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Rational Relationship Between the Statute's Classification and Purpose

Text: Appellants contend that in the absence of a credit prohibition on sales of wine and liquor from wholesalers to retailers, the Cash Beer Law is the kind of discrimination condemned in George Benz Sons, Inc. v. Ericson, 227 Minn. 1, 34 N.W.2d 725 (1948). Furthermore, appellants argue, in the absence of a prohibition on the extension of credit from brewers to wholesalers, the Cash Beer Law is fatally underinclusive. These contentions are answered in Minnesota v. Clover Leaf Creamery Co., ___ U.S. ____, 101 S.Ct. 715, 66 L.Ed.2d 659 (1981), where the standard for the rational basis test is set out as follows: Although parties challenging legislation under the Equal Protection Clause may introduce evidence supporting their claim that it is irrational, United States v. Carolene Products Co., 304 U.S. 144, 153-154, 58 S.Ct. 778, 784, 82 L.Ed. 1234 (1938), they cannot prevail so long as it is evident from all the considerations presented to [the legislature], and those of which we may take judicial notice, that the question is at least debatable. Id., at 154, 58 S.Ct., at 784. Where there was evidence before the legislature reasonably supporting the classification, litigants may not procure invalidation of the legislation merely by tendering evidence in court that the legislature was mistaken. Id. 101 S.Ct. at 724 (emphasis added) (footnote omitted). Under that standard the appellants have not met their burden of proof. Appellants have demonstrated that although the question of the statute's classifications may be debatable, those classifications do not render the statute totally defective. In Clover Leaf the Supreme Court also substantially restricted the grounds on which a statute can be challenged as being underinclusive pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment: [A] legislature need not strike at all evils at the same time or in the same way, and that a legislature may implement [its] program step by step,    adopting regulations that only partially ameliorate a perceived evil and deferring complete elimination of the evil to future regulations. Id. 101 S.Ct. at 725 (quoting Semler v. Oregon State Board of Dental Examiners, 294 U.S. 608, 610, 55 S.Ct. 570, 571, 79 L.Ed. 1086 (1935); New Orleans v. Dukes, 427 U.S. 297, 303, 96 S.Ct. 2513, 2516, 49 L.Ed.2d 511 (1975)) (citations omitted). Based on the record before us, we reject the claim that the challenged statute's classifications are unreasonable and hold that they have not been shown to violate on their face the equal protection standards of the United States Constitution.