Weekly litigation report
Individual Rights – Equal Protection. In the long-running saga of Rothe Development, Inc. v. Department of Defense and Small Business, a small business is challenging the racial classifications in Section 8(a) of the Small Business Act as a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment guarantee of Equal Protection. That section sets a goal for the federal government to award construction contracts to historically disadvantaged individuals. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected Rothe’s claim that the challenged statute creates racial classifications and that the court must apply a strict scrutiny analysis. On Wednesday of this week, October 19, Rothe filed a Petition for Rehearing and for Rehearing En Banc. As Meriem Hubbard explains, PLF assisted Rothe’s attorney on the petition, and will continue to support Rothe as amicus if the a petition for certiorari is filed in the U.S. Supreme Court.
Individual Rights – Education Reform. The California Court of Appeal issued a disappointing decision on Monday in Anderson Union High School District v. Shasta Secondary Home School. The case concerns the extent to which non-classroom based charter schools may open resource centers in the county where they are located. Joshua Thompson explains that the court interpreted the California Charter Schools Act in a manner that results in an awkward distribution of permissible locations for these resource centers. As a result of the court’s decision, many home schooled children in the rural areas of California will not have the same opportunities to use public educational resources as students in more urban areas.
What to read next
Shed a (crocodile) tear for Luke Skywalker today, as Mark Hamill’s much ballyhooed Autograph Law is set to be undone and reformed by the same California officials who made the mistake to pass it in the first place. AB 228 has arrived at the Governor’s desk, and in all likelihood will be signed into law any day.
Our new flagship publication, Sword&Scales, offers 16 pages of news and information to bring you up close to the vital work of our legal team. Our ardent defense of the right to own and use private property takes center stage in the inaugural issue. It’s at the core of our mission in the nation’s courts.
On Thursday, in Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky, PLF filed this reply brief in support of its cert petition to the Supreme Court of the United States. In this case, we’re representing Minnesota voters in a First Amendment challenge to a ban on political apparel at polling places.
The Daily Journal published my column on California Cannabis Coalition v. City of Upland, recently decided by the California Supreme Court. As the op-ed points out, the ruling undermines Proposition 218’s requirements that all new taxes at the local level need voter approval.