Court Opinion

ID: 9640047
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 16:56:12.565612+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:10:25.774551
License: Public Domain

DISSENTING OPINION BY
Judge LEADBETTER.
I join in Judge Pellegrini’s well-reasoned dissenting and concurring opinion. I write separately simply to emphasize his point that, “[t]he core flaw in the majority’s argument is that it looks to the reason behind the enactment of the legislation which is entirely different from the reason why the General Assembly made the classifications at issue.” (Op. at p. 1186) In other words, I strongly'disagree that in an equal protection analysis the challenged distinction must be rationally related to the general overall purpose of the legislation, since the distinction drawn acts as a limitation on the legislation. Rather, the distinction must be rationally related to some legitimate government interest which justifies the limitation. Otherwise, almost any limitation on the effect of a law would be doomed from the start. Because I believe the majority has created an unwise and unworkable sea change in equal protection law, I must regrettably dissent.
Judge PELLEGRINI joins this dissenting opinion.