Class Legislation/WalMart

Frank Cross crossf at
Fri Jan 13 07:49:01 PST 2006

It seems pretty easy to defend this law, regardless of the 
statements.  Suppose that the legislative determination is that very large 
employers should provide a quantum of health insurance (the reason could be 
affordability or because large employers pose a greater burden on state 
resources, etc.)  The actual cutoff level is the sort of thing that judges 
wisely steer clear of evaluating.  On what basis could a judge say it 
should be 1000 or 5000 instead of 10,000.  With respect to "screw Walmart", 
that could well be motivated by the company's failure to provide health 
insurance, which is the stated company-neutral basis of the bill.  It would 
be difficult to show that this attitude was attributable in fact to some 
animus for the Walton family, though I suppose that would be a reasonable 
basis for a challenge.

And the pollution hypothetical is not that far off. There are a few 
chemical pollutants that are attributable to only a few companies, and it 
is very plausible that EPA would adopt a regulation that all but one 
already met.  Or what about drugs.  Once a drug company has a patent, any 
regulation of use or labeling that  drug by the government would by 
definition be aimed at a single company.

More information about the Conlawprof mailing list