Golden Glow v. City of Columbus, MS ( 2022 )

Case: 21-60898 Document: 00516538139 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/08/2022
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
November 8, 2022
No. 21-60898 Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Golden Glow Tanning Salon, Incorporated,
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
City of Columbus, Mississippi,
Defendant—Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 1:20-CV-103
Before Jones, Ho, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
Edith H. Jones, Circuit Judge:
Golden Glow Tanning Salon filed a civil rights suit against the City of
Columbus, which shut down its business for seven weeks at the outset of the
Covid-19 pandemic. The district court granted the City’s motion for
summary judgment. Subsequent experience strongly suggests that draconian
shutdowns were debatable measures from a cost-benefit standpoint, in that
they inflicted enormous economic damage without necessarily “slowing the
Case: 21-60898 Document: 00516538139 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/08/2022
No. 21-60898
spread” of Covid-19.1 The balance of impacts was not well understood at the
time, however, and we are constrained to affirm.
I. Background
On March 14, 2020, the Governor of Mississippi declared a state of
emergency in response to the Covid-19 pandemic. One week later, the City
of Columbus, Mississippi, promulgated an ordinance (“the City
Ordinance”) declaring a civil emergency and including a number of measures
to counter the spread of the virus. Section 2 of the City Ordinance subjected
Golden Glow and many other businesses to mandatory closure from
March 21 through May 9, 2020.2 The ordinance’s stated purpose was to
reduce excessive person-to-person contact in order to slow the spread of
Covid-19. Violations were punishable by fine or imprisonment.
An owner of Golden Glow told the mayor and two city council
members that his tanning business could operate without person-to-person
contact and that no more than two people needed to be in the business at any
one time. The City made no exception for the salon. On May 20, 2020,
Golden Glow filed suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the City, alleging that
the City Ordinance violated the Equal Protection Clause and constituted a
1
See Great Barrington Declaration, https://gbdeclaration.org (last visited Oct. 24,
2022); Jonas Herby, Lars Jonung & Steve H. Hanke, A Literature Review and Meta-Analysis
of the Effects of Lockdowns on Covid-19 Mortality, 200 Studs. in Applied Econs. 1
(2022); Alex Berenson, Unreported Truths about Covid-19 and
Lockdowns (2020).
2
Other businesses subject to closure included “bars, nightclubs, meetings of
fraternal and civic organizations, child care facilities, bowling alleys, recreational facilities,
skating rinks, tattoo parlors, gyms, barbershops, hair/beauty and nail . . . salons, spas,
convention centers, community centers, and parks.” The City Ordinance also restricted
“all churches, temples and places of worship, assemblages and gatherings” to “no more
than 10 people.”
2
Case: 21-60898 Document: 00516538139 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/08/2022
No. 21-60898
taking under the Fifth Amendment.3 The district court granted summary
judgment for the City. Golden Glow timely appealed.
II. Discussion
This court “reviews the district court’s grant of summary judgment
de novo, applying the same standards as the district court.” Greater Houston
Small Taxicab Co. Owners Ass’n v. City of Houston, 660 F.3d 235, 238 (5th Cir.
2011) (internal quotation omitted). A party is entitled to summary judgment
“if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact
and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
FED. R. CIV. P. 56. See also Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322,
106 S. Ct. 2548, 2552 (1986).
Golden Glow initially contends that the City Ordinance violated equal
protection by treating tanning salons differently from churches, Wal-Marts,
and liquor stores. The salon also contends that the shutdown constituted a
per se taking under the Fifth Amendment, for which Golden Glow is entitled
just compensation.
A. Equal Protection
1. “Similarly Situated”
To establish an equal protection claim, Golden Glow must first show
that it was treated differently from another similarly situated business. See
Tex. Ent. Ass’n v. Hegar, 10 F.4th 495, 513 (5th Cir. 2021); see also Hines v.
Quillivan, 982 F.3d 266, 272–73 (5th Cir. 2020). “Similarly situated” means
“in all relevant respects alike.” Tex. Ent. Ass’n, 10 F.4th at 513 (quoting
Nordlinger v. Hahn, 505 U.S. 1, 10, 112 S. Ct. 2326, 2331 (1992)) (sports bars
3
Golden Glow also asserted unreasonable seizure and due process claims, but
those are not before this court.
3
Case: 21-60898 Document: 00516538139 Page: 4 Date Filed: 11/08/2022
No. 21-60898
featuring scantily clad waitresses were not similarly situated to erotic clubs
under Texas law regulating sexually oriented businesses); see also Big Tyme
Invs., L.L.C. v. Edwards, 985 F.3d 456, 468 (5th Cir. 2021) (Covid-19 orders
permitting restaurants to reopen but requiring bars to remain closed treated
similarly situated businesses differently).
To determine what businesses are similarly situated to tanning salons,
we must consider “the full variety of factors that an objectively
reasonable . . . decisionmaker would have found relevant” when making the
classification. Stratta v. Roe, 961 F.3d 340, 360 (5th Cir. 2020) (alteration in
original) (quoting Lindquist v. City of Pasadena Tex., 669 F.3d 225, 234 (5th
Cir. 2012)) (expounding upon “similarly situated” in class-of-one equal
protection claims). “[T]he inquiry is case-specific.” Lindquist, 669 F.3d at
234. For example, this court has held that two seemingly identical bars,
located next to each other and selling wine and beer, were not similarly
situated as to liquor permits where one establishment was grandfathered with
more generous terms than were available to the other under a subsequent
local ordinance. See Beeler v. Rounsavall, 328 F.3d 813, 817 (5th Cir. 2003).
First, there are similarities between tanning salons and the other
businesses shut down by the City Ordinance. Each class of shut-down
business provides recreational, social, or, as some would say, “non-
essential” services; the clientele typically spend more than a few minutes at
the location; and the likelihood of close person-to-person contact may pose
risks. Tanning salons fit squarely within this mold. They provide a largely
aesthetic service, and their clientele typically spend at least 15 minutes onsite.
Even though Golden Glow contends that tanning salons can be modified to
avoid close contact between customer and employee, the customer must
spend more than a few minutes in a small, enclosed space while partially
clothed.
4
Case: 21-60898 Document: 00516538139 Page: 5 Date Filed: 11/08/2022
No. 21-60898
Second, Golden Glow can rationally be differentiated from churches,
large retailers like Wal-Mart, and liquor stores, none of which were closed by
the City Ordinance. As the district court explained, those three comparators
“provide different services,” “are in different positions,” “and do not
present the same health and safety concerns”; they are “simply not similarly
situated.”
We agree with the district court’s reasoning, at least with regard to
churches and Wal-Marts. Under a public health ordinance, churches and
Wal-Marts are not “in all relevant respects alike” to tanning salons for equal
protection purposes. Churches enjoy special protection under the First
Amendment. Indeed, to treat churches any worse than secular businesses
would likely run afoul of the Constitution. See Roman Cath. Diocese of
Brooklyn v. Cuomo, 141 S. Ct. 63, 68 (2020) (per curiam). Churches are
different in kind from tanning salons and are not similarly situated under the
City Ordinance.
Additionally, while large retailers like Wal-Mart offer some social or
recreational services, they are important suppliers of an abundance of
necessary goods. True, Wal-Marts and tanning salons both sell artificial
tanners. Even so, stores with partially similar inventories are not necessarily
similarly situated. See Beeler, 328 F.3d at 817. Golden Glow has not shown
that Wal-Marts and tanning salons are “in all relevant respects alike,” that
is, that Wal-Marts offer predominantly social or recreational services and
present the same health and safety concerns as the City thought problematic
for tanning salons.
Liquor stores, however, may present a close call as to certain relevant
similarities with tanning salons. Neither business offers an essential service
5
Case: 21-60898 Document: 00516538139 Page: 6 Date Filed: 11/08/2022
No. 21-60898
to the community.4 As with tanning salons, the actual transaction between a
customer and clerk may take only a few seconds. Moreover, both
establishments can operate without close person-to-person contact. But a
defining feature of the tanning salon, and a distinguishing characteristic from
the liquor store, is that customers disrobe and occupy a small space for fifteen
minutes or more. In an abundance of caution, we assume they are similar.
2. Rational Basis Review
The next task is to determine the “appropriate level of scrutiny for
our review.” Big Tyme Invs., 985 F.3d at 468. Rational basis review applies
to legislative classifications unless the “classification impermissibly
interferes with the exercise of a fundamental right or operates to the peculiar
disadvantage of a suspect class,” in which case, strict scrutiny applies. Mass.
Bd. of Ret. v. Murgia, 427 U.S. 307, 312, 96 S. Ct. 2562, 2566 (1976) (per
curiam) (footnotes omitted). Golden Glow argues that the City Ordinance
should be subject to strict scrutiny because it deprives certain business
owners of a fundamental right—namely, the right to work.
The Supreme Court does not now recognize a fundamental right to
work and has consistently applied rational basis review “to state legislation
restricting the availability of employment opportunities.” Dandridge v.
Williams, 397 U.S. 471, 485, 90 S. Ct. 1153, 1162 (1970) (refusing to apply a
heightened standard of review even to a law restricting “the most basic
economic needs of impoverished human beings”). As the Court put it in
Conn v. Gabbert, “the liberty component of the Fourteenth Amendment’s
Due Process Clause includes some generalized due process right to choose
4
The City makes a strained argument that liquor stores provide a necessary service
because they supply alcohol to alcoholics. This is not a reasonable ground for considering
liquor stores any more “essential” than tanning salons.
6
Case: 21-60898 Document: 00516538139 Page: 7 Date Filed: 11/08/2022
No. 21-60898
one’s field of private employment, but a right which is nevertheless subject
to reasonable government regulation.” 526 U.S. 286, 291–92, 119 S. Ct.
1292, 1295–96 (1999). Accordingly, rational basis review applies to this
dispute.5
Under this standard, a governmental classification “will be upheld ‘if
there is a rational relationship between the disparity of treatment and some
legitimate governmental purpose.’” Greater Houston Small Taxicab,
660 F.3d at 239 (quoting Heller v. Doe, 509 U.S. 312, 320, 113 S. Ct. 2637,
2642 (1993)). This “differential treatment is justified by any reasonably
conceivable state of facts.” Id. (internal quotation omitted). But the
government “may not rely on a classification whose relationship to an
asserted goal is so attenuated as to render the distinction arbitrary.” City of
Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr., 473 U.S. 432, 446, 105 S. Ct. 3249, 3258
(1985).
Golden Glow contends that the City Ordinance created an arbitrary
distinction between tanning salons and liquor stores that bore no rational
relationship to public health given the salon’s ability to operate safely and
without customer contact. The City responds that tanning salons, when
compared to liquor stores, were not “so important to society that the benefits
of continued operations . . . outweigh[ed] the risks of spreading the virus.”
5
Golden Glow also attempts to claim strict scrutiny by arguing that the City
Ordinance violates the Establishment Clause and thus “impinges upon a fundamental right
explicitly or implicitly protected by the Constitution.” Duarte v. City of Lewisville, 858 F.3d
348, 354 (5th Cir. 2017). Golden Glow first raised this claim in summary judgment briefing,
but the district court did not address it in the opinion granting summary judgment. Even if
the claim was not waived for late filing, see Bye v. MGM Resorts Int’l, Inc., _F.4th_, 2022
WL 4533723, at *5–6 (5th Cir. Sept. 28, 2022), it is meritless. That religious exercise and
assembly are granted specific constitutional protection is not a back-door means to argue
that secular organizations are entitled to be treated the same by regulations; the
Constitution created the difference.
7
Case: 21-60898 Document: 00516538139 Page: 8 Date Filed: 11/08/2022
No. 21-60898
The City rationalizes that the length of time spent in a tanning bed as
compared to a liquor store raised the probability that the virus was more likely
to spread in a tanning salon.
This proffered reason is not arbitrary. See Big Tyme Invs., 985 F.3d at
469 (shutting down bars but leaving restaurants open to reduce the spread of
Covid-19 was not irrational). Further, this conclusion is not altered by
Golden Glow’s contention that it could have maintained a safer environment
than could liquor stores. Under rational basis review, overinclusive and
underinclusive classifications are permissible, as is some resulting inequality.
See Vance v. Bradley, 440 U.S. 93, 108, 99 S. Ct. 939, 948 (1979); Heller,
509 U.S. at 321, 113 S. Ct. at 2643. The City Ordinance may have been
overinclusive in the absence of exceptions for safe and sterile tanning salons,
and underinclusive for failing to shut down every similarly situated business.
But such imperfections do not make a law supported by at least one
“conceivable basis” an irrational one. F.C.C. v. Beach Comm’s, Inc., 508 U.S.
307, 315, 113 S. Ct. 2096, 2102 (1993) (internal quotation omitted). Golden
Glow’s equal protection claim fails rational basis review.
B. Taking
The Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, applicable to the States
through the Fourteenth Amendment, guarantees that private property shall
not “be taken for public use, without just compensation.” U.S. CONST.
amend. V. The physical appropriation of private property by the government
is the “clearest sort of taking.” Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid, 141 S. Ct.
2063, 2071 (2021) (quoting Palazzolo v. Rhode Island, 533 U.S. 606, 617,
121 S. Ct. 2448, 2457 (2001)). And a physical appropriation resulting from
government regulation is “no less a physical taking.” Id. at 2072. Such
regulation constitutes a “per se taking.” Id.
8
Case: 21-60898 Document: 00516538139 Page: 9 Date Filed: 11/08/2022
No. 21-60898
A per se taking also occurs in the “rare situation[]” “where regulation
denies all economically beneficial or productive use of land.” Lucas v. S.C.
Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003, 1015, 1016–17, 112 S. Ct. 2886, 2893–94
(1992) (positing that “total deprivation of beneficial use is, from the
landowner’s point of view, the equivalent of a physical appropriation”). But
when the government “instead imposes regulations that restrict an owner’s
ability to use his own property,” the “flexible test developed in Penn Central”
applies. Cedar Point Nursery, 141 S. Ct. at 2071–72 (emphasis added). That
balancing test weighs “factors such as the economic impact of the regulation,
its interference with reasonable investment-backed expectations, and the
character of the government action.” Id. at 2072 (quoting Penn Central
Transp. Co. v. N.Y.C., 438 U.S. 104, 124, 98 S. Ct. 2646, 2659 (1978)).
Golden Glow argues that the closure of the salon was a per se taking
because it amounted to both a physical invasion under Cedar Point Nursery
and a total deprivation of productive use under Lucas. Cedar Point Nursery
involved a California regulation that granted to labor organizations a “right
to take access to an agricultural employer’s property in order to solicit
support for unionization.” Id. at 2069. Access was required for up to three
hours per day, 120 days per year. Id. The Court held that the “right to take
access” amounted to a “per se physical taking” because it appropriated “for
the enjoyment of third parties the owners’ right to exclude,” which “is ‘one
of the most treasured’ rights of property ownership.” Id. at 2072, 2080
(citation omitted). Cedar Point Nursery does not apply here because the City
Ordinance did not authorize physical intrusions onto Golden Glow’s
property.6
6
Golden Glow speculates that the City would have padlocked the salon’s doors
had Golden Glow refused to comply. There is no basis for this conclusion in the record.
The City Ordinance penalized violations with fines and/or imprisonment.
9
Case: 21-60898 Document: 00516538139 Page: 10 Date Filed: 11/08/2022
No. 21-60898
Lucas is also inapposite. There, the Supreme Court held that a statute
barring the erection of any permanent habitable structures on certain
beachfront lots could constitute a taking because the land had “been
rendered valueless.” 505 U.S. at 1017, 1020, 112 S. Ct. at 2896.7 But the
Court also affirmed that landowners are not entitled to compensation when
they are prevented from using their property for only some productive
purposes. Id. at 1015–19, 112 S. Ct. at 2894–96. Here, the closure of the salon
constitutes a deprivation of some economically productive uses (i.e., the uses
forbidden by the Ordinance’s Section 2). Nothing in the record supports the
conclusion that the City Ordinance rendered the entire property
“valueless.” The district court was correct to find that there had been no per
se taking.8
For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the judgment.
7
In footnote 8, Justice Scalia acknowledged that a landowner with even a 95% loss
cannot “claim the benefit” of this “categorial formulation.” The Penn Central test would
instead apply in such a case. Lucas, 505 U.S. at 1019 n.8, 112 S. Ct. at 2895 n.8.
8
Golden Glow devotes one paragraph of its appellate brief to the argument that a
regulatory taking occurred under the Penn Central balancing test. That argument is waived
on appeal because Golden Glow did not argue Penn Central before the district court. See
Kirschbaum v. Reliant Energy, Inc., 526 F.3d 243, 257 n.15 (5th Cir. 2008); see also Little v.
Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d 1069, 1071 n.1 (5th Cir. 1994) (en banc) (per curiam).
10
Case: 21-60898 Document: 00516538139 Page: 11 Date Filed: 11/08/2022
No. 21-60898
James C. Ho, Circuit Judge, concurring:
The Supreme Court has recognized a number of fundamental rights
that do not appear in the text of the Constitution. But the right to earn a
living is not one of them—despite its deep roots in our Nation’s history and
tradition. Governing precedent thus requires us to rule against the countless
small businesses, like Plaintiff here, crippled by shutdown mandates imposed
by public officials in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Cases like this
nevertheless raise the question: If we’re going to recognize various
unenumerated rights as fundamental, why not the right to earn a living?
***
The COVID-19 pandemic triggered “one of the broadest exercises of
state power over individuals in the country’s history.” Eugene Kontorovich,
Lochner Under Lockdown, 2021 U. Chi. Legal F. 169, 182 (2021).
Millions of wage earners and small business owners watched helplessly as
public officials claimed the “extraordinary power to force people from their
chosen occupations, destroy vast investment and reliance interests, and make
millions dependent on government assistance”—marking a “radical
departure from prior practice, and perhaps prior imagination, of the scope,
intensity, and duration of government power over private business.” Id.It was only by the grace of government that we would eventually begin
our return to normalcy. That’s because our current law of unenumerated
rights prioritizes non-economic activities over economic endeavors.
A principled approach to the Constitution can take one of two forms:
We can enforce only those rights that are expressly enumerated in the
Constitution. Or we can recognize a broader range of fundamental rights,
including those not expressly stated in the Constitution, by appealing to some
principle not explicit in the text.
Case: 21-60898 Document: 00516538139 Page: 12 Date Filed: 11/08/2022
No. 21-60898
The Supreme Court has taken the latter approach. It has long said
that it will recognize “those fundamental rights and liberties which are,
objectively, deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition, and implicit
in the concept of ordered liberty, such that neither liberty nor justice would
exist if they were sacrificed.” Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 720–
21 (1997) (cleaned up). And it reaffirmed this approach earlier this year. See
Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Org., 142 S. Ct. 2228, 2242, 2246 (2022).
Under the Court’s approach to unenumerated rights, we privilege a
broad swath of non-economic human activities, while leaving economic
activities out in the cold. Scholars have suggested, however, that this may
get things backwards. After all, if anything, “the right to pursue callings and
make contracts . . . have better historical grounding than more recent claims
of right that have found judicial favor.” James W. Ely Jr., “To Pursue Any
Lawful Trade or Avocation”: The Evolution of Unenumerated Economic Rights
in the Nineteenth Century, 8 U. Pa. J. Const. L. 917, 953 (2006)
(emphasis added). See also, e.g., Timothy Sandefur, The Right to
Earn a Living: Economic Freedom and the Law (2010); David
E. Bernstein, The Due Process Right to Pursue a Lawful Occupation: A Brighter
Future Ahead?, 126 Yale L.J. F. 287 (2016); Steven G. Calabresi & Larissa
C. Leibowitz, Monopolies and the Constitution: A History of Crony Capitalism,
36 Harv. J.L. & Pub. Pol’y 983 (2013); Timothy Sandefur, The Right to
Earn a Living, 6 Chap. L. Rev. 207 (2003).
For over a century before our Founding, English courts protected the
right to pursue one’s occupation against arbitrary government restraint. See,
e.g., 1 William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of
England 415 (“At common law every man might use what trade he
pleased.”); Sandefur, supra, at 18–23; Calabresi & Leibowitz, supra, at
989–1003. This right emerged out of the struggles between the Crown and
the courts over the problem of monopoly—a term that was understood at the
12
Case: 21-60898 Document: 00516538139 Page: 13 Date Filed: 11/08/2022
No. 21-60898
time to mean any “company insulated from competition by a special legal
privilege which barred others from competing.” Sandefur, supra, at 219–20.
The Crown attempted to confer special privileges by allowing only a select
few to practice certain occupations. See Sandefur, supra, at 20–21;
Calabresi & Leibowitz, supra, at 996–1003. English courts responded with
hostility to such efforts. For example, Lord Chief Justice of England Edward
Coke observed that “the common law abhors all monopolies, which prohibit
any from working in any lawful trade.” The Case of the Tailors, &c. of Ipswich,
77 Eng. Rep. 1218, 1219 (K.B. 1615). Eventually, Parliament enacted the
Statute of Monopolies in 1623, prohibiting monopolies while allowing
exceptions for patentable inventions. See Sandefur, supra, at 20–21;
Calabresi & Leibowitz, supra, at 996–1003. See also Bernstein, supra, at 288
(describing the “ancient Anglo-American constitutional tradition opposed to
governmental grants of monopoly power to aid favored businesspeople and
exclude others”) (collecting authorities).
This aversion to monopolies was brought to the American colonies.
The Massachusetts Body of Liberties of 1641 contained an express
prohibition on monopolies, stating that “[n]o monopolies shall be granted or
allowed amongst us, but of such new Inventions that are profitable to the
Countrie, and that for a short time.” See also Michael Conant, Antimonopoly
Tradition Under the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendment: Slaughter-House Cases
Re-Examined, 31 Emory L.J. 785, 797 (1982). And later, members of the
Founding generation agreed on the fundamental importance of the right to
pursue one’s occupation. Benjamin Franklin wrote that “[t]here cannot be
a stronger natural right than that of a man’s making the best profit he can of
the natural produce of his lands.” Causes of the American Discontents before
1768, in Benjamin Franklin: Writings 613 (Lemay ed., 1987).
George Mason authored the Virginia Declaration of Rights and included an
express provision securing “the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means
13
Case: 21-60898 Document: 00516538139 Page: 14 Date Filed: 11/08/2022
No. 21-60898
of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness
and safety.” Va. Decl. of Rights § 1 (1776). See Sandefur, supra,
at 24. Mason would later oppose the Constitution precisely because he
feared that, absent express protections, “Congress may grant monopolies in
trade and commerce.” 1 Debates on the Adoption of the
Federal Constitution 496 (Jonathan Elliot, ed. 1866). See generally
Conant, supra, at 801. In his writings to Thomas Jefferson about the Bill of
Rights, James Madison noted that monopolies “are justly classed among the
greatest nuisances in government.” Letter from James Madison to Thomas
Jefferson (Oct. 17, 1788), in 14 The Papers of Thomas Jefferson 21
(Princeton 1958). And Jefferson agreed. In his public and private writings,
Jefferson “attach[ed] as much importance to the English constitutional
immunity from grants of monopoly as he did those privileges and immunities
which eventually appeared in the First Amendment.” Conant, supra, at 800.
See also id. at 799–800 (same).
Similar sentiments were expressed in the years leading up to the Civil
War and the Reconstruction Amendments. In his debates with Stephen
Douglas, Abraham Lincoln emphasized the fundamental importance of the
right to exercise one’s labors: “In the right to eat bread, without leave of
anybody else, which his own hand earns, he is my equal and the equal of Judge
Douglas, and the equal of every living man.” The Ottawa Debate, in The
Complete Lincoln-Douglas Debates of 1858 117 (Angle ed.,
1991). Representative John Bingham, one of the primary drafters of the
Fourteenth Amendment, later explained that “our own American
constitutional liberty . . . is the liberty . . . to work an honest calling and
contribute by your toil in some sort to the support of yourself, to the support
of your fellowmen, and to be secure in the enjoyment of the fruits of your
toil.” Cong. Globe, 42nd Cong., 1st Sess. App. 86 (1871) (statement of Rep.
Bingham). The Supreme Court echoed these sentiments, observing that
14
Case: 21-60898 Document: 00516538139 Page: 15 Date Filed: 11/08/2022
No. 21-60898
“[t]he right to work for a living in the common occupations of the community
is of the very essence of the personal freedom and opportunity that it was the
purpose of the [Fourteenth] Amendment to secure.” Truax v. Raich, 239
U.S. 33, 41 (1915). See also Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923)
(recognizing the right “to engage in any of the common occupations of life”).
***
The First Amendment guarantees the freedom of speech and religion.
But the meaningful exercise of those freedoms often requires the expenditure
of resources. The Fourth Amendment secures the people in their houses,
papers, and effects, and the Fifth Amendment protects property from taking
without just compensation. But it’s virtually impossible for most citizens to
obtain property without an income.
In short, the right to engage in productive labors is essential to
ensuring the ability of the average American citizen to exercise most of their
other rights. Cf. James W. Ely Jr., The Guardian of Every
Other Right: A Constitutional History of Property
Rights (2007).
So it’s not surprising that various scholars have determined that the
right to earn a living is deeply rooted in our Nation’s history and tradition—
and should thus be protected under our jurisprudence of unenumerated
rights.
But that is for the Supreme Court to determine. See, e.g., Pet. for Writ
of Certiorari in Tiwari v. Friedlander, No. 22-42 (U.S.). In the meantime,
governing precedent requires us to affirm. Accordingly, I concur.
15