zickt at stjohns.edu
Fri Jan 13 06:38:48 PST 2006
As Marty Lederman indicates, this looks more like a "class of four" than
a "class of one" (Olech). But even if the legislation targets one
business for this particular burden, does it violate the EPC? If there
were four polluters, three of whom met a favored emissions standard and
one that did not, could the legislature not enact legislation to force
the fourth to reduce its emissions?
St. John's University School of Law
From: conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Mark Tushnet
Sent: Friday, January 13, 2006 9:19 AM
To: DavidEBernstein at aol.com
Cc: Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: Class Legislation/WalMart
Isn't it relevant to the equal protection claim that the regulatory
requirement *applies* to four employers, three of whom have, for their
own reasons, already structured their systems so that they comply with
the requirement? Put another way, Wal-Mart now has to change its
policy, and Giant Foods can't change the policy it now has.
DavidEBernstein at aol.com wrote:
I can't think of a clearer example of "class legislation" than a law
designed to require WalMart, and only WalMart, to provide health
insurance to its workers. A violation of equal protection?
David E. Bernstein
University of Michigan School of Law
George Mason University School of Law
To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as
private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are
posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly
or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Conlawprof