Opinion ID: 3053418
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Supreme Court and Circuit Law Allows Some

Text: Inquiry Into the Rationale for the Classification [11] Moreover, even where the nature of the classification is clear, subsequent case law has not rigidly interpreted the cases Defendants cite. The Supreme Court has cautioned that “even the standard of rationality . . . must find some footing in the realities of the subject addressed by the legislation.” Heller, 509 U.S. at 321; accord Immigration Assistance Project, 306 F.3d at 872 (quoting Heller). Consistent with this admonition, our circuit has allowed plaintiffs to rebut the facts underlying defendants’ asserted rationale for a classification, to show that the challenged classification could not reasonably be viewed to further the asserted purpose. For example, in Lockary v. Kayfetz, homeowners challenged a city’s moratorium on new water hookups, which the city claimed was needed due to a water shortage. 917 F.2d 1150, 1155-56 (9th Cir. 1990). Because the plaintiffs introduced evidence that there was no water shortage at all, their Equal Protection claim survived summary judgment even under rational basis review. Id. Similarly, in Parks v. Watson, a developer claimed a city violated its Equal Protection rights when it required the developer to relinquish a well before it could build. 716 F.2d 646, 654-55 (9th Cir. 1983). The city asserted three reasons for the demand: “(1) [the developer]’s noncompliance with the City’s request that it submit conceptual drawings of the [project], (2) a concern over the problem of public access, and (3) a desire to acquire [the developer]’s geothermal wells for the City’s proposed geothermal heating district.” Id. at 654. We found factual disputes as to whether the developer failed to submit drawings and whether there was actually a concern over access, and found that a bare desire to take the developer’s wells was not a legitimate interest. Id. at 654-55. LAZY Y RANCH LTD v. BEHRENS 13803 [12] Additionally, we have stated that “in an equal protection claim based on selective enforcement of the law, a plaintiff can show that a defendant’s alleged rational basis for his acts is a pretext for an impermissible motive.” Engquist v. Or. Dep’t of Agric., 478 F.3d 985, 993 (9th Cir. 2007) (emphasis added); (citing Squaw Valley Dev. Co. v. Goldberg, 375 F.3d 936, 944 (9th Cir. 2004)). [13] Here, Lazy Y attacks the premise that increased administrative costs could rationally result from its leases. Among other things, Lazy Y claims that the IDL “rarely undertakes the supervision necessary to ensure that other grazing lessees comply with management requirements for land preservation.” Read in the light most favorable to Lazy Y, this allegation suggests that Defendants may never have intended to police the grazing lands at all, and therefore would never actually have incurred increased costs if Lazy Y was the lessee.6 And some of Lazy Y’s claims amount to allegations of “selective enforcement,” such as the claim that Defendants required more specific grazing proposals from Lazy Y than they did for other parties. [14] In sum, we reject Defendants’ contention that their administrative costs rationale necessarily defeats Lazy Y’s claim. Lazy Y alleges that administrative costs have been raised only to deny leases to conservationists. It also alleges 6 Lazy Y’s other attacks on the administrative costs rationale are less availing. The allegation that no costs would result simply because Defendants had not proposed to hire additional staff ignores the possibility that existing staff would be diverted from other projects and would incur increased travel costs. And it is irrelevant that denying Lazy Y’s leases might have led to litigation costs. Moreover, we agree that Lazy Y’s offers to cover additional administrative costs do not mean it was irrational to reject its bids. The August 2006 memo estimated increased costs of $45,000 if the leases went to Lazy Y. Lazy Y offered to pay $30,000 and whatever other costs were shown to be “reasonably necessary.” Defendants could rationally have wished to avoid debates about what costs were “reasonably necessary.” 13804 LAZY Y RANCH LTD v. BEHRENS that Defendants would not actually have incurred additional costs at all, and raised them only out of bias against conservationists and market newcomers. These allegations suffice to state an Equal Protection claim even under rational basis review. See Lockary, 917 F.2d at 1155-56. b. Class of One In addition to relying on their administrative costs rationale, Defendants also argue that Lazy Y has asserted a “class of one” claim, which should be deemed incognizable in the context of competitive bidding for public leases. We disagree with Defendants’ characterization of Lazy Y’s claims. [15] The “class of one” theory was recognized in Olech, and is unusual because the plaintiff in a “class of one” case does not allege that the defendants discriminate against a group with whom she shares characteristics, but rather that the defendants simply harbor animus against her in particular and therefore treated her arbitrarily. See N. Pacifica LLC v. City of Pacifica, 526 F.3d 478, 486 (9th Cir. 2008) (“When an equal protection claim is premised on unique treatment rather than on a classification, the Supreme Court has described it as a ‘class of one’ claim.” (citing Olech, 528 U.S. at 564)). Such circumstances state an Equal Protection claim because, if a state actor classifies irrationally, the size of the group affected is constitutionally irrelevant. Olech, 528 U.S. at 564. As Defendants recognize, this court has held that plaintiffs cannot bring “class of one” cases challenging public employment decisions, because: (1) “the government as employer has broader powers than the government as regulator, [so] the scope of judicial review is correspondingly restricted; (2) “the need for judicial review under equal protection ‘is especially thin’ given the number of other legal protections” for public employees; (3) and applying equal protection “to forbid arbitrary or malicious firings . . . would completely invalidate the LAZY Y RANCH LTD v. BEHRENS 13805 practice of public at-will employment.” Engquist, 478 F.3d at 994-95. The Supreme Court affirmed this ruling and adopted this rationale. Engquist v. Or. Dep’t of Agriculture, 128 S.Ct. 2146, 2151-57 (2008). Analogizing the public bidding context to the public employment context addressed in Engquist, Defendants ask us to hold that the “class of one” theory does not apply. [16] The problem with this argument, however, is that Lazy Y does not rely on a class of one theory. Lazy Y alleges repeatedly that Defendants treated it differently based on its perceived association with conservationists and because it was a newcomer to Idaho grazing markets. In other words, Lazy Y’s claims are not premised on “unique treatment” but on “a classification;” therefore, we need not decide whether the class of one theory would be cognizable in this context. See N. Pacifica, 526 F.3d at 486. Accordingly, Plaintiffs have stated an Equal Protection claim.