Court Opinion

ID: 9440588
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 16:56:04.848487+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:27:47.954942
License: Public Domain

KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judge,
concurring in part and concurring in the judgment.
I agree with the court that we have jurisdiction here. I respectfully disagree, however, with the court’s conclusion on the severance issue, since I think it implausible that the shareholder-disclosure provision was a sine qua non for the 1991 Ordinance’s enactment. I also disagree *469with the court’s view that the equities are not dispositive here. As an initial matter, all of the court’s commentary in footnote 5 is dicta, since the court decides the case on severance grounds rather than equitable ones. Otherwise, I think it was the plaintiffs’ burden to show that continued enforcement of the judgment would be “detrimental to the public interest.” See Horne v. Flores, — U.S. —, 129 S.Ct. 2579, 2593, 174 L.Ed.2d 406 (2009). They have not come close to making that showing here. I therefore concur in the court’s discussion of the jurisdictional issue, and concur in the judgment as well.