Opinion ID: 811592
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Heightened Rational Basis Review

Text: Gallagher next argues the district court erred in dismissing his claim that the Ordinance fails a more exacting form of rational basis review. Gallagher contends -9- the Supreme Court established a “rational basis with bite” test in Romer, 517 U.S. at 632, invalidating legislation having animus toward a particular class of persons as its sole purpose. Because the City’s asserted rationales for the Ordinance are “pretextual,” Gallagher asserts, the Ordinance is “actually an arbitrary and discriminatory treatment of smokers based on animus” that fails this heightened standard of review and violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. See id. at 634 (stating “a bare . . . desire to harm a politically unpopular group cannot constitute a legitimate governmental interest”) (quoting Dep’t of Agric. v. Moreno, 413 U.S. 528, 534 (1973)) (internal quotation marks omitted). Even assuming the Supreme Court established some form of heightened rational basis review in Romer, Gallagher’s assertion must fail. As Gallagher has acknowledged, a Romer-type analysis only applies where there is no other legitimate state interest for the legislation that survives scrutiny. See id. at 634-35. Because we have already determined the City’s health-based justification is adequate, the Ordinance is not the product solely of animus so as to fall within the Romer ambit.