Court Opinion

ID: 9782427
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 18:31:30.430654+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:12:26.181979
License: Public Domain

BUSTAMANTE, Judge (specially concurring). {25} This case presents a surprisingly difficult issue under our Equal Rights Amendment. The interest at issue here can be viewed as trivial, especially in comparison to the interests considered in N.M. Right to Choose. On the other hand, the City has criminalized behavior differently on a gender-based characteristic. N.M. Right to Choose can be read to require the City to prove a compelling state interest supporting the classification. The Opinion refuses to label the classification as suspect. I agree with that approach though perhaps for a slightly different reason. The activity and interest at stake is the polar opposite of what N.M. Right to Choose considered. No court has recognized any general right or license to public nudity, whereas equal and fair access to health care is of critical importance to us all. The potential harm to women flowing from this classification is slight enough not to warrant or require the kind of judicial intervention inherent in strict scrutiny review.