Laserfiche WebLink
I <br /> <br /> l <br /> I <br /> I <br />'1 <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> 1 <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> l <br /> I <br /> i <br /> I <br /> <br /> Page -4- <br /> <br />pejorative one-liners cited by defendants (e.g., Statute must be unconstitutional <br />"beyond reasonable doubt," and classification must be "hostile and oppressive <br />discrimination". (Defendants' Memorandum at 16-17). <br /> <br /> C. .Identifying the "Purpose" of the Challeneged Law. <br /> <br /> The equal protection standard of analysis cited above clearly gives signifi- <br />cance to the "purpose" of the law as this purpose is the reference point for the <br />analysis of the law's rationality. See also, Florida Rea] Estate Commission v. <br />McGregor, 336 So.2d 1156, 1159 (Fla. 1976) ("there must be a logical connection <br />between the classification involved and the stated purpose to be achieved by the <br />statute...") The ease with which defendants reach the conclusion that there are <br />no "issues of material fact" which are disputed is largely a consequence of their <br />apparent belief that they may ascribe any "purpose" they wish to the legislature's <br />action in order to justify it. Plaintiffs submit that this undisciplined speculation <br />runs contrary to the case law. <br /> <br /> Courts have consistently ruled that the "purpose" which is the reference point <br />of an equal protection analysis must be a "legitimate, articulated purpose." <br />(emphasis supplied) San Antonio School District v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1, 17 (1973); <br />Sidle v. Maior~s., 536 F2d 1156, 1157 (7th Cir. 1976), cert den., 429 U.S. 945; Murillo v. <br />Bambrick, 508 F.Supp. 830, 833 (D.N.3.19gl). Courts have also emphasized that the <br />identification of the "articulated purpose" is the first step of equal protection <br />analysis and not, as defendants here would have it, a matter of post hoc <br />justifications by defense counsel. See e.g., Delaware River Basin Commission v. <br />B.ucks County Water and Sewer Authority, 641 F2d 1097, 1092-9~ (3rd Cir. 1951). In <br />addition~ the only situation in which courts even consider the speculation of counsel <br />is where there is no legislative history to consider. Icl. at 1095~ Murillo v. Bambrick, <br />508 F.Supp. 830, 838 (D.N.3. 19$1).Without this discipline imposed on the search for <br /> <br /> <br />