Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

New Orleans v. Dukes

Supreme Court of the United States · 1976 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawEqual ProtectionEconomic RegulationEqual Protection Clauseeconomic regulationrational basisgrandfather clausemunicipal ordinance

Facts

New Orleans amended its code in 1972 to restrict many business permits to areas outside the Vieux Carre and to ban pushcart food vendors there except during Mardi Gras. The amendment included a grandfather clause allowing vendors who had continuously operated the same business within the Vieux Carre for eight or more years before January 1, 1972, to obtain a valid permit to continue operating there. Appellee operated pushcarts throughout New Orleans but had worked in the Vieux Carre for only two years, so the amendment barred her from continuing there. Two pushcart food vendors who had operated in the Vieux Carre for over 20 years qualified under the grandfather clause and were allowed to remain.

Issue

Whether the New Orleans ordinance's grandfather clause, which exempted vendors who had continuously operated the same business in the Vieux Carre for eight or more years before January 1, 1972, denied appellee equal protection of the laws. More specifically, the question was whether this classification in a purely economic regulation was rationally related to a legitimate governmental interest.

Rule

When local economic regulation is challenged solely under the Equal Protection Clause, and the classification neither burdens fundamental rights nor rests on suspect distinctions such as race, religion, or alienage, the classification is presumed constitutional and need only be rationally related to a legitimate state interest. In this sphere, legislatures have wide latitude, may proceed step by step, and need not eliminate all aspects of a perceived problem at once; only invidious discrimination or wholly arbitrary action violates equal protection.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Savannah adopts an ordinance limiting sidewalk portrait artists in its historic riverfront district to those who either operated there continuously for at least 10 years before the ordinance or work outside the district. Maya Ortiz, who began working there three years earlier, sues the city under the Equal Protection Clause only, arguing the grandfather clause irrationally favors entrenched competitors.

How should a court most likely evaluate Maya's equal protection claim?

Explanation. When a local economic regulation is challenged solely under the Equal Protection Clause, and no fundamental right or suspect classification is involved, the classification is presumed constitutional and need only be rationally related to a legitimate state interest. Preserving the appearance and tourist-oriented charm of a historic district is a legitimate objective, and the city may proceed step by step by removing newer operators first. The court does not require proof that the line drawn is the best or most accurate one.