Originally IIRC, people asserted a state mandating a private business to not accept cash was violated statutory law and was unconstitutional. The assertion appears to be incorrect. This isn't a slam dunk case against LA, it probably isn't even a 50/50 case.I think there is a constitutional claim for being overbroad, but do keep in mind that none of those cases you cited preclude other constitutional claims for this particular case. LA is in the 5th Circuit, which does fancy itself more important than the 11th, so if nothing else, they'd probably take a look. It's not unusual for the 5th and 11th circuits to come out differently, either. I believe the cases you cited (haven't had time to read all of them yet) all deal with scrappers, too. A case dealing with the LA law would obviously be distinguishable on the facts, enough so to look at other constitutional claims.
I don't do constitutional or appellate law, nor am I licensed in LA or any jurisdiction within 1000 miles of it. Just my conjecture on the subject.
The three cases, only one is an appellate, the 6th citing the SDNY case. The Mississippi case, a 5th district, cites both and finds them both persuasive when denying injunctive relief against the State of Mississippi. There appears to be a similar case before the 3rd. And yes the facts are different, one applies to a smaller subsection, where as this applies to a broader subsection but, these cases are just logical extensions of earlier rulings.
Also, since the federal government agrees withs with the current interpretations, they won't file suit against LA. Which means a private person with standing and deep pockets is going to have to take up the issue and take it through the entire appellate process with a very very uncertain outcome, probably much less than 50/50 chance of success. And even if they are successful, LA could still come back and pass a law that does much the same thing and meet whatever standard the courts come up with.
The best I could see happening is the law has to be narrowed to only second hand businesses and not to private individuals(yes I know businesses/corporations are viewed as individuals, but they are regulate much more than a real person). But then again I am not a con law expert.