Speed's Auto Services Group, Inc. v. City of Portland
685 F. App'x 629
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Plaintiffs Speed’s Auto Services Group and Fiesta Enterprises challenged City of Portland regulations imposing minimum fares and wait-time rules that treated taxis and sedans differently.
- Plaintiffs asserted substantive due process and equal protection claims, arguing the rules amounted to a complete prohibition on their occupational liberty and were economic protectionism favoring taxis.
- District court entered judgment for the City; plaintiffs appealed to the Ninth Circuit.
- The City defended the rules as measures to maintain a healthy, well-functioning transportation market and to preserve economic viability of different for-hire service types.
- The Ninth Circuit considered whether (1) a conceivable legitimate basis existed for the regulations under substantive due process precedent and (2) the differential treatment between taxis and sedans survived rational-basis review under equal protection.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Substantive due process — occupational liberty ("complete prohibition") | Regulations function as a complete prohibition on plaintiffs’ businesses and thus violate substantive due process | Even if a complete prohibition, City has conceivable, legitimate reasons (market health, operator viability) | Court assumed without deciding the rule qualified as a complete prohibition but rejected the claim because the City offered a conceivable legitimate basis |
| Equal protection — disparate treatment of taxis vs. sedans | The rules are mere economic protectionism favoring taxis and lack a rational basis | Classification is rationally related to legitimate governmental purpose: maintaining a healthy transportation market | Court applied rational-basis review, found regulations rationally related to legitimate goals, and rejected the claim |
| Burden of proof on rational-basis review | Plaintiffs must show the proffered justifications are false or motivated by improper purpose | City need only show any conceivable legitimate basis; plaintiffs must negate every conceivable basis | Plaintiffs failed to negate conceivable bases; their protectionism allegation insufficient without factual showing |
| Contextual assessment of regulatory scheme | Plaintiffs argued benefits to taxis show protectionism | City pointed to complex framework imposing both benefits and burdens across providers | Court viewed regulations in context and found differential treatment not a naked attempt at protectionism |
Key Cases Cited
- Dittman v. California, 191 F.3d 1020 (9th Cir. 1999) (tests for "complete prohibition" and substantive due process occupational-liberty claims)
- Lupert v. Cal. State Bar, 761 F.2d 1325 (9th Cir. 1985) (conceivable-basis approach for reviewing government justifications)
- Engquist v. Oregon Dep’t of Agric., 478 F.3d 985 (9th Cir. 2007) (courts do not probe whether government justification is pretext in occupational liberty cases)
- Halverson v. Skagit County, 42 F.3d 1257 (9th Cir. 1995) (use of conceivable legitimate reasons standard)
- Kahawaiolaa v. Norton, 386 F.3d 1271 (9th Cir. 2004) (rational-basis standard explanation for equal protection challenges)
- Heller v. Doe, 509 U.S. 312 (U.S. 1993) (burden on challenger to negative every conceivable basis for classification)
- Merrifield v. Lockyer, 547 F.3d 978 (9th Cir. 2008) (mere economic protectionism is irrational under equal protection)
- Squaw Valley Dev. Co. v. Goldberg, 375 F.3d 936 (9th Cir. 2004) (creating triable issue that proffered basis is false or motive improper)
- Craigmiles v. Giles, 312 F.3d 220 (6th Cir. 2002) (striking down regulations as naked economic protectionism)
- Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc., 544 U.S. 528 (U.S. 2005) (limits on certain takings/regulatory substantive-review doctrines)
- Greater Hous. Small Taxicab Co. Owners Ass’n v. City of Houston, 660 F.3d 235 (5th Cir. 2011) (upholding regulations favoring full-service taxis as legitimate government purpose)
- Kan. City Taxi Cab Drivers Ass’n, LLC v. City of Kansas City, Mo., 742 F.3d 807 (8th Cir. 2013) (upholding rules favoring existing taxi companies to preserve quality/market)
AFFIRMED.