Why the Hettinga case is important
Reason’s Damon Root, Instapundit’s Elizabeth Foley, and the Yuma Sun explain why our petition for certiorari in Hettinga v. United States is so important. The case is about more than the legality of federal price-fixing laws for dairies—awful as such laws are. No, this case is about whether people have the right to challenge the constitutionality of laws in the first place.
When you file a lawsuit, one of the first things the defendant can do to get rid of the case is to file a motion to dismiss, arguing that even if everything you say is true, you’re still not entitled to win—perhaps because you’re past the statute of limitations, or because you waived your rights in some way. If the judge grants such a motion, your case gets dismissed without you having any chance to collect evidence or call witnesses or anything. Lawyers often call this a 12(b)(6) motion, since that’s the number of the dismissal rule in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Things get complicated when you challenge the constitutionality of a law that restricts your economic freedom. Thanks to New Deal-era precedents, courts apply “rational basis scrutiny” to such laws—the lowest level of review, which is extremely biased toward the government. In such a case, you’re required to prove that the law is totally unreasonable. The government doesn’t have the burden of proof—you do. This “rational basis” rule has no foundation in the Constitution; it was devised for political reasons in the 1930s, and has remained ever since, prejudicing the courts against entrepreneurs and property owners, and undermining the promises of constitutional protection. And it does not just apply to cases involving the rights of business owners. In Romer v. Evans, for example, the Supreme Court said that laws that differentiate between gay people and straight people are also subject to the “rational basis” rule.
What the court did in the Hettingas’ case was to declare that when the government merely asserts that the law you’re challenging is rational, that’s enough to have the case thrown out on a 12(b)(6) motion—so that you get no chance to gather evidence and prove your allegations. If that is the way the system works, then the “rational basis” test will be not just an unfair presumption against you—it’ll become a trick where the government can snap its fingers and make a case go away.
Although the Hettingas sued to defend their right to sell milk at low prices, their case is important for far broader reasons: will entrepreneurs, business owners, and the many others whose rights are subject to the “rational basis” test have any chance to defend themselves against unconstitutional restrictions on their freedom?
What to read next
ReasonTV released a new video that showcases our client Peggy Fontenot and her case against the Attorney General of Oklahoma. If you’ll recall, last year, Oklahoma enacted a new law that limits who may market art as American Indian-made.
Justice Don Willett of the Texas Supreme Court endured the partisan gauntlet of the Senate hearing on his nomination to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. The hearing only confirmed what has been known for some time: Justice Willett will serve the federal judiciary with integrity, wit, and commitment.
Earlier this year, the City of Seattle shocked the people of Washington—indeed, many across the nation—when it decided to impose an income tax on so-called “high-earners” in direct defiance of the Washington State Supreme Court, which has repeatedly held that the state constitution’s uniformity clause prohibits targeted income taxes.
PLF and several allied organizations submitted a petition for rule-making to the federal agencies that administer the Endangered Species Act. The petition asks the agencies to define “species” and “subspecies,” terms which, although critical to the Act’s operation, are left undefined by statute and regulation.
Next Friday, I’ll be presenting oral argument in the Ninth Circuit in Cedar Point Nursery v. Gould. The case involves a challenge to the ALRB’s access regulation, which allows union organizers to use the private property of agricultural employers to solicit potential union members.