Court Opinion

ID: 9466545
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 01:19:16.374585+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:39:47.934212
License: Public Domain

VANCE, Circuit Judge,
concurring:
I concur in the court’s opinion. Brief elaboration of my understanding of part III, however, may be useful. Although a rational relation test governs our review of state authorized economic regulations, Pollard v. Cockrell, 578 F.2d 1002 (5th Cir. 1978), two points should be emphasized regarding our use of this test. First, we have reviewed the constitutionality of the challenged regulations in light of the city’s actual purposes; we have not upheld the various regulations because of purposes that we have conjured into existence or purposes that have been offered by the city in the form of a post hoc rationalization. Second, the rational relation test is not necessarily applied in an either/or fashion to a multifaceted set of economic regulations. The appropriate standard of review is correlated to the substance of each regulation. If, as here, one part of the set abridges a fundamental right, such as the right of privacy, the state must demonstrate that the abridgement caused by that part is necessary to promote a compelling governmental interest and that no less intrusive means exists to achieve the state’s legitimate purpose. I also believe that a similarly focused and strict analysis applies if, instead of abridging a fundamental right, a particular regulation transgresses a constitutional provision concerning how government should conduct its legitimate business; for example, a government may not enact ex post facto laws. U.S.Const. art. I, § 10, cl. 1. Under the facts of this case, however, I have no trouble embracing the court’s opinion disposing of the appellants’ due process, takings and retroactivity arguments.