Agenda - Council - 12/20/1983 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

I ! I I I i I I i I ii' I I I ,I ! to a legitimate governmental purpose. E.~., City of New Orleans v. Dukes, 427 U.S. 297, 303, 96 S. Ct. 2513, 2516-17 (1977).26/ In applying this test, the legislature's judgment is not lightly to be second-guessed: [T]he legislature [has] broad discretion in determining that a classification bears a reasonable relation to a governmental purpose, and the courts should not interfere unless there is palpable error. Matter of McCannel, 301N.W.2d 910, 917 (Minn. 1980). More particularly, when a statute under attack relates to taxation or the fiscal affairs of the state, the court must be even more wary of interfering with legislative discretion. The Minnesota Supreme Court has explaihed this principle of deference on a number of occasions by quoting from the United States Supreme Court: The broad discretion as to classification possessed by a legislature in the field of taxation has long been recognized .... IT]he passage of time has only served to underscore the wisdom of that recognition of the large area of discretion which is needed by a legislature in formulating sound tax policies .... It has . . . been pointed out that in taxation, even more than in other fields, legislatures possess the greatest freedom in classification .... IT]he presumption of constitutionality can be overcgme only by the most explicit demonstration that a classification is a hostile and oppressive di~(~rimination against particular persons and classes .... Although the Minnesota Supreme Court has on occasion expressed the standard to be applied in such cases in terms of three factors, it has recently acknowledged that its three-part test is merel,, a restatement of the "rational relationship to a legitimane governmental purpose" standard. AFSCME Councils 6, 14, 65 and 96, AFL-CIO v. Sundquist, No. C1-83-152, slip. op. at 13 n. 12 (Minn. Sup. Ct. Sept. 16, 1983). -17-