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.
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.
Last edited:
Facebook
Twitter