New Orleans v. Dukes
427 U.S. 297 (1976)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, a state or local law that regulates economic activity is presumed constitutional and will be upheld if the classification it creates is rationally related to a legitimate government interest.
Facts:
- The Vieux Carre, or French Quarter, is a historic district in New Orleans and is central to the city's economy and tourist industry.
- To preserve the character of the Vieux Carre, the New Orleans City Council passed an ordinance in 1972 prohibiting pushcart food vendors from operating within it.
- The ordinance contained a 'grandfather clause' that exempted vendors who had continuously operated the same business in the Vieux Carre for eight or more years prior to January 1, 1972.
- Nancy Dukes had operated a pushcart vending business in the Vieux Carre for two years at the time the ordinance was amended.
- As a result of the ordinance, Dukes was barred from continuing her business in the historic district.
- Two other vendors, one selling hot dogs and the other ice cream, had operated in the Vieux Carre for over 20 years and thus qualified for the exemption.
Procedural Posture:
- Nancy Dukes filed an action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, challenging the New Orleans ordinance as a violation of equal protection.
- On cross-motions for summary judgment, the District Court granted judgment in favor of the City of New Orleans.
- Dukes, as appellant, appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's decision, holding that the ordinance's 'grandfather clause' was unconstitutional, and remanded the case.
- The City of New Orleans, as appellant, appealed the decision of the Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court of the United States.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a city ordinance that bans pushcart food vendors from a historic district, but exempts vendors who have operated there for eight or more years, violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
No, the city ordinance does not violate the Equal Protection Clause. Economic regulations are subject to rational basis review and are constitutional if they are rationally related to a legitimate state interest. The city's stated purpose of preserving the charm and economic vitality of the Vieux Carre is a legitimate government interest. The City Council could have rationally concluded that pushcart vendors detract from the area's character and that a gradual phasing-out, starting with newer vendors, was an appropriate method of addressing the issue. The city could also have rationally believed that the two long-standing vendors had become part of the Quarter's distinctive charm and had substantial reliance interests in their continued operation. The Court's role is not to act as a 'superlegislature' judging the wisdom of the policy, but only to determine if there is a rational basis for it. This decision explicitly overrules Morey v. Doud, which had previously invalidated an economic regulation on equal protection grounds, re-establishing a highly deferential standard for such laws.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the use of the highly deferential rational basis test for all economic regulations challenged under the Equal Protection Clause. By explicitly overruling Morey v. Doud, the Court eliminated an anomaly in its jurisprudence and signaled that it would not use the Equal Protection Clause to second-guess legislative judgments in the economic sphere. The ruling grants state and local governments extremely broad latitude to create classifications in economic legislation, even if those classifications result in some inequality, so long as there is any conceivable rational connection to a legitimate purpose.
Unlock the full brief for New Orleans v. Dukes