Court Opinion

ID: 9489813
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 13:24:52.943531+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:53:43.844676
License: Public Domain

CUDAHY, Circuit Judge,
concurring.,
I have no quarrel with the result or with the observation that “[t]he concept of equal *1183protection is trivialized when it is used to subject every decision made by state or local government to constitutional review by federal courts.” Op. at 1181. However, I do not believe that it is meaningful to say that ISTA is “asking for a revision of policy rather than for a restoration of equality.” Id. at 1182. Every plaintiff who sues under the Equal Protection Clause desires a “revision of policy” precisely on the grounds that the revision would bring about a “restoration of equality.” Whether we say that ISTA is not equally situated “in a rationally relevant respect,” id,., and is thus barred from seeking a restoration of non-existent equality, or that ISTA is equally situated but that the disparate treatment has a rational basis, does not matter much. “Rational basis” thus seems to be the proper test under either approach, and we may use the same basic reasoning to reach either conclusion.
There is really np difficulty in saying that ISTA and AFSCME are equally situated but that the school board had a rational basis for distinguishing between them. This approach may put the burden of proof (such as it is) on the school board, unlike the majority’s analysis, which presumably would place it on ISTA Either way ISTA loses, but, since the board is the decisionmaker, it may appropriately be required to show that its choice was rational.