Posted by Eugene Volokh:
A Rare Circuit Case Allowing a "Rational Basis" Challenge To Go Forward:
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2009_05_24-2009_05_30.shtml#1243533932
[1]Dias v. City & County of Denver (paragraph break added):
[T]he plaintiffs have alleged a substantive due process violation
sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a
claim. Viewing the factual allegations in the light most favorable
to the plaintiffs, as we must, the complaint plausibly alleges that
the [pit bull ban] Ordinance is not rationally related to a
legitimate government interest. Although the plaintiffs may be
unable to demonstrate through evidence that the Ordinance is
irrational, the complaint makes out a claim for relief.
It is uncontested that Denver has a legitimate interest in animal
control -- the protection of health and safety of the public. Even
so, the plaintiffs have alleged that the means by which Denver has
chosen to pursue that interest are irrational. In particular, the
plaintiffs contend that there is a lack of evidence that pit bulls
as a breed pose a threat to public safety or constitute a public
nuisance, and thus, that it is irrational for Denver to enact a
breed-specific prohibition.
Pointing to the cases where courts across the country have rejected
substantive due process challenges to pit bull bans, Denver argues
that the Ordinance is rational as a matter of law. This argument
misconceives the nature of the plaintiffs� challenge. Specifically,
the plaintiffs contend that although pit bull bans sustained twenty
years ago may have been justified by the then-existing body of
knowledge, the state of science in 2009 is such that the bans are
no longer rational. [Footnote: Moreover, in the majority of cases
where courts have sustained a pit bull ban as reasonable, they have
done so based on a developed evidentiary record. No such record was
developed in this case because the district court dismissed
pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6).]
This claim finds some support in the AKC and UKC standards
themselves, to which the plaintiffs direct us. The official UKC
breed standard for the American Pit Bull Terrier, for instance,
states that �[American Pit Bull Terriers] make excellent family
companions and have always been noted for their love of children.�
American Pit Bull Terriers are an �extremely friendly� breed �even
with strangers. Aggressive behavior toward humans is
uncharacteristic of the breed ....� Similarly, the AKC breed
standard for Staffordshire Bull Terriers states that, �with its
affection for its friends, and children in particular, its off-duty
quietness and trustworthy stability, [the Staffordshire Bull
Terrier is] a foremost all-purpose dog.� Without drawing factual
inferences against the plaintiffs, the district court could not
conclude at this early stage in the case that the Ordinance was
rational as a matter of law.
We have no occasion to pass upon the ultimate merit of plaintiffs�
substantive due process challenge; that is not our role at this
juncture. We are constrained to deciding if the complaint alleges
facts sufficient to state a claim for relief. Whether the
plaintiffs can marshal enough evidence to prevail on the merits of
their claim that the Ordinance is irrational is a different matter
entirely. But at the 12(b)(6) stage, we must assume that they can,
even if it strikes us �that a recovery is very remote and
unlikely.� Crediting the allegations in the complaint, and drawing
all inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the
plaintiffs, we conclude that they have stated a plausible
substantive due process violation.
Not a huge victory for the plaintiffs, for reasons the quote makes
clear -- but still something of a victory, and one that in my
experience has been pretty rare, given the Court's [2]view that "In
areas of social and economic policy, a statutory classification that
neither proceeds along suspect lines nor infringes fundamental
constitutional rights must be upheld against equal protection
challenge [and substantive due process challenge -EV] if there is any
reasonably conceivable state of facts that could provide a rational
basis for the classification."
Thanks to [3]How Appealing for the pointer.
References
1. http://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/08/08-1132.pdf
2.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=508&invol=307
3. http://howappealing.law.com/
_______________________________________________
Volokh mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.powerblogs.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/volokh
