The North Carolina Court of Appeals held that a private for-profit club (Gates City Billiards Country Club) did not have its equal protection rights violated by the state’s smoking ban law that permits smoking in private non-profit clubs but not private for-profit clubs (See Liebes v. Guilford County Department of Public Health).
To treat clubs differently based on for-profit v. non-profit status, the state must have a rational basis for the distinction. This means, as explained in the case, that the distinctions “bear some rational relationship to a conceivable legitimate governmental interest.”
This is an easy standard for the government to meet.
However, what is particularly interesting is how far the court has to go to come up with a justification for allowing the distinction. Since there’s no clear legislative history or clarification within the statute as to why the distinction was made, the court analyzes the rational basis test by coming up with its own possible rational reasons why the legislature made the distinction between for-profit and non-profit private clubs.
The distinctions that the court identifies are simply guesses as to the legislature’s true motivation. Unfortunately, courts create massive hurdles for a plaintiff to strike down a possibly unconstitutional provision by starting with the presumption that the provision is constitutional.
Practically, it may not be feasible for there to be a clear indication of legislative intent for every provision, but on something of such magnitude (equal protection implications), there certainly should be some background on why parties are being treated differently.
On the federal level, more detailed legislative histories, including committee reports, help to inform courts. When there’s basically nothing to go on for a state court, the courts create a policy rationale.
The state legislature should consider developing more detailed records when constitutional issues may arise.
