Silvio Membreno v. City of Hialeah
188 So. 3d 13
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Hialeah amended its street-vending ordinance (2013) to: (1) prohibit peddlers from permanently stopping or remaining at any one location on public or private property unless allowed by zoning; and (2) limit vendors on-foot to displaying only the goods they can carry on their person.
- Street vendors (Silvio Membreno and Florida Association of Vendors) sell mainly to stopped vehicles at intersections and challenge those two provisions as violating substantive due process under article I, § 9 of the Florida Constitution.
- The City justified the amendments on pedestrian/traffic safety and zoning/enforcement grounds; the ordinance’s whereas clauses describe concerns about display/storage in rights-of-way and compatibility with zoning rules.
- Trial court granted summary judgment to the City, applying the rational-basis test and finding the provisions rationally related to legitimate government interests.
- On appeal, vendors argued McCall changed Florida’s rational-basis review—requiring evidentiary support and judicial reweighing of legislative findings; the City and the court below maintained Florida follows the traditional, deferential rational-basis test.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the ordinance provisions violate substantive due process (rational-basis review) | Ordinance lacks evidentiary support; under McCall Florida requires government to prove actual effects—not mere speculation. | Traditional rational-basis applies: challenger bears heavy burden; ordinance need only be fairly debatable and plausibly related to legitimate interests. | Held: Traditional rational-basis applies; vendors failed to negate any conceivable rational basis. Ordinance is constitutional. |
| Whether McCall overruled Florida’s traditional rational-basis test | McCall’s plurality signaled willingness to reweigh legislative facts and require record evidence, making Florida’s test more stringent than federal test. | McCall produced fractured opinions; no majority expressly overruled long-standing precedents adopting the traditional deferential test. | Held: McCall did not overrule prior precedent; Florida retains the traditional, deferential rational-basis test. |
| Whether courts may conduct courtroom fact-finding to test legislative findings under rational basis | Vendors: courts should evaluate legislative factual predicates with evidence; trial required to test ordinance effects. | City: legislative findings are not subject to courtroom fact-finding; laws may rest on rational speculation or experiment. | Held: Legislative judgments need not be proved with courtroom evidence under rational-basis review; no trial required absent disputed material facts that would defeat the presumption. |
| Whether the ordinance survives rational-basis scrutiny on the record presented | Vendors: ordinance harms vendors’ business and safety; there are better alternatives. | City: provisions serve legitimate aims (safety, zoning enforcement); restriction is at least fairly debatable as rational. | Held: Provisions are rationally related to legitimate objectives (pedestrian/traffic safety; zoning enforcement); vendors did not meet burden to show no conceivable rational basis. |
Key Cases Cited
- Belk-James, Inc. v. Nuzum, 358 So. 2d 174 (Fla. 1978) (articulates Florida’s rational-basis standard for economic regulation)
- McKnight v. State, 769 So. 2d 1039 (Fla. 2000) (applies rational-basis test to due process challenges under Florida and federal constitutions)
- Haire v. Fla. Dep’t of Agric. & Consumer Servs., 870 So. 2d 774 (Fla. 2004) (explains deferential rational-basis review and burden on challenger)
- Gallagher v. Motors Ins. Corp., 605 So. 2d 62 (Fla. 1992) (upholds statute where legislature reasonably could have believed measure promoted objective; factual proof not dispositive)
- Estate of McCall v. United States, 134 So. 3d 894 (Fla. 2014) (plurality decision striking statutory cap on noneconomic damages; produced fractured opinions debated on rational-basis scope)
- West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish, 300 U.S. 379 (U.S. 1937) (adopted modern rational-basis standard ending Lochner-era scrutiny)
- Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45 (U.S. 1905) (exemplar of discredited substantive due process that reweighed legislative policy)
- Chandler v. Florida, 449 U.S. 560 (U.S. 1981) (acknowledges states’ leeway to experiment without courts substituting their policy judgments)
- Williamson v. Lee Optical of Okla., Inc., 348 U.S. 483 (U.S. 1955) (rational-basis principle that courts may uphold laws if any conceivable rational relation exists)