A Stitch in Haste

Here is a wonderful, and all too rare, example of a law being declared unconstitutional because it did not satisfy rational basis review, in a context that is not entirely irrelevant to me:

We agree that the protection of property and people from injuries by dogs is clearly a legitimate governmental interest. Nevertheless, this interest must bear a rational or "real and substantial relationship" to the conduct being regulated by the statute, in this case the mere ownership of pit bulls. The state statutes and city ordinance were all enacted specifically to regulate pit bulls because of their allegedly inherently "dangerous" temperament. Since the trial court found that the pit bull, as a breed, is not inherently dangerous or vicious, then the interest in protecting the health and welfare of citizens is no more rationally related to pit bulls than it is to any other breed which has a potential to inflict injury on humans. ... Once the finding is made that a specific breed does not inherently represent a greater danger than any other breed, a law that regulates that breed on the basis of mere ownership is arbitrary, unreasonable, and discriminatory.

In other words, a court can't simply pretend that a legislature knows what it's talking about -- regarding breed-specific legislation or anything else -- when the court determines that it clearly doesn't. Rational basis review does not mean blind deference. A court is entitled, when confronted with objective and demonstrable evidence, to say to a legislature: "You are simply mistaken."

Meanwhile, unless this ruling by an intermediate appellate court is overturned by the Ohio Supreme Court (which heard oral arguments on the case yesterday), pit bulls in Toledo will have greater "rational basis" protection than gay couples have in New York or Washington State. Go figure.

The case is Toledo v. Tellings, 2006-Ohio-975 (6th App. Dis., March 3, 2006) (PDF - 28 pages)

(Via How Appealing.)