Court Opinion

ID: 9759972
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 00:36:22.578419+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:06.962782
License: Public Domain

Clifford, J.
(concurring). It is difficult to escape the impression that we are reviewing this case with blinders on. Since plaintiff elected not to brief or argue the issue, we in turn do not resort to our peripheral vision to examine the interaction of the ordinance in question with the statutes excepting certain municipal employees from the residence requirement. At footnote 1, ante, (p. 64, n. 1) the majority takes note of N. J. S. A. 40:46-14, requiring “officers” of municipalities to reside therein but excepting “counsel, attorney, engineer or health officer;” its successor statute effective July 1, 1971, N. J. S. A. 40A:9-1. excepting, in addition, an “auditor or comptroller;” and N. J. S. A. 40A:15-9.1 and 40A:14-122.1, under which municipalities are forbidden to impose the residence requirement on policemen or firemen. The same footnote properly observes that “[ajppellant has not raised any question as to the construction of any of these statutes or as to the validity of the exceptions or exemptions contained therein, either separately or taken in conjunction with the, Newark ordinance.”
While the Court has thus made the point, I deem it worth emphasizing that at least as far as my vote to affirm is concerned there should not be read into it any decision on whether the residence requirement here has been “uniformly applied” when considered in connection with the statutes referred to above. See Memorial Hospital v. Maricopa County, 415 U. S. 250, 255, 94 S. Ct. 1076, 1081, 39 L. Ed. 2d 306, 313, quoting Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U. S. 330, 342, 92 S. Ct. 995, 1003, 31 L. Ed. 2d 274, 284, n. 13, (1972). It might very well be argued that the pattern of discrimination which emerges from that broader view of the ease would be most difficult to sustain under a rational basis test and certainly under a compelling state interest test. *77Some peculiar combinations come to mind: school teachers, legal secretaries, sanitation men and physicians must live in the city, while auditors, policemen and firemen need not.
I express no more than a mild curiosity as to why the question has not been raised (speculating, at the same time, on whether plaintiff was apprehensive of winning the battle but losing the war • — ■ this by gaining a declaration that the ordinance in question, read with the statutes, is unconstitutional, thereby prompting the legislature to repeal the exemption statutes, in response to which the City of Newark might thereafter pass an all-embracing, uniformly applied, bona fide residence requirement ordinance. On reflection this seems attenuated but not inconceivable.).
I underscore our limited perspective without dwelling further on it. I concur in the judgment of affirmance and in the Court’s opinion, given the narrow posture in which the issue is presented.