Reference no: EM133857175

Question

The state of West Franklin enacted a law, the "Public Safety Residency Act," requiring all police officers and firefighters employed by municipal governments to reside within the municipality where they work. The law was enacted after concerns were raised about public safety personnel living in distant suburbs and not being readily available in case of emergencies.

John, a firefighter in the city of Fairview, has lived in a nearby suburban town for the past 15 years. When the law was enacted, he was given a six-month period to relocate or face termination. John challenged the law in federal court, arguing that it violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

John presented evidence that the law disproportionately impacts racial minorities, as minority police officers and firefighters are more likely to live outside of Fairview due to historical housing discrimination and economic disparities. In response, the state argued that the law is race-neutral on its face and is rationally related to the legitimate interest of ensuring public safety personnel are available to respond quickly to emergencies.

John also introduced evidence that other municipalities in West Franklin, which have predominantly white populations, have been granted exemptions from the law due to alleged "administrative difficulties" in enforcing it.

1. What level of judicial scrutiny applies to John's Equal Protection Clause challenge? Explain your reasoning.

2. Assess the likelihood of success of John's challenge based on the appropriate level of scrutiny.

3.  Does the fact that some municipalities have received exemptions from the law strengthen John's Equal Protection argument? Why or why not?

4. If the court finds that the law has a disparate impact on racial minorities, but there is no evidence of discriminatory intent, what is the likely outcome?