DOWNTOWN BAR AND GRILL, LLC v. State
273 P.3d 709
| Kan. | 2012Background
- Downtown Bar is a Class B club in Tonganoxie, licensed May 4, 2009.
- Kansas Indoor Clean Air Act (2010) generally bans indoor smoking but exempts certain Class B clubs meeting Jan. 1, 2009 license and opt-in requirements.
- Downtown Bar was licensed as a drinking establishment, not as a Class B club, thus ineligible for the exemption.
- Downtown Bar filed for declaratory judgment alleging equal protection violations under U.S. and Kansas constitutions.
- Trial court issued a temporary injunction prohibiting enforcement of the Act as applied to Downtown Bar.
- The Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding Downtown Bar failed to show substantial likelihood of success on the merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are pre- and post-2009 Class B clubs similarly situated? | Downtown Bar argues classes are not rationally distinguished. | State treats all Class B clubs the same under liquor laws. | Yes, they are similarly situated; issue resolved for purposes of rational basis analysis. |
| Does the Act implicate fundamental rights or suspect classes requiring higher scrutiny? | Equal protection rights are implicated by the cut-off. | No fundamental rights or suspect classes are involved; rational basis applies. | No fundamental rights or suspect classes implicated; rational basis applies. |
| Does the January 1, 2009 cut-off/date have a rational relationship to the smoking ban? | Cut-off is arbitrary and not rationally related to health aims. | Date could rationally prevent circumvention by reclassification of clubs. | Court found the cut-off arbitrary; cannot sustain rational basis for injunction; remanded. |
Key Cases Cited
- Steffes v. City of Lawrence, 284 Kan. 380 (2007) (abuse of discretion standard for temporary injunctions; five-factor test)
- Board of Miami County Comm'rs v. Kanza Rail-Trails Conservancy, Inc., 292 Kan. 285 (2011) (three-step equal protection analysis; level of scrutiny depends on rights)
- Limon, 280 Kan. 275 (2005) (equal protection framework and standards)
- Peden v. Kansas Dept. of Revenue, 261 Kan. 239 (1996) (burden to negate every conceivable basis under rational basis review)
- McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U.S. 420 (1961) (statutory discrimination may be rationally related to legitimate objectives)
- Beach Communications, Inc., 508 U.S. 307 (1993) (legislative choices may be sustained on rational speculation)
- Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U.S. 330 (1972) (fundamental rights and strict scrutiny concepts context)