Rafael Marfil, Verge Productions, LLC, Enrico Marfil, Naomi Marfil, Korey A. Rholack, Daniel Olveda, and Douglas Wayne Mathes
Plaintiffs – Appellants, v.
City Of New Braunfels, Texas,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, Waco Division No. 6:20-CV-248 (Hon. Alan D. Albright)
Introduction and relief requested
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 29 and Fifth Circuit Rule 29, amici applicants Pacific Legal Foundation (“PLF”), Manhattan Institute, and Reason Foundation respectfully ask this Court to grant their unopposed motion to file the attached proposed brief amicus curiae in support of Appellants Rafael Marfil et al., and in support of reversal. Counsel for the parties have consented to the filing of this motion and the brief amicus curiae.
Reasons why the motion should be granted
Amicus applicants’ breadth of experience, expertise, and unique perspectives on these issues will assist this Court in considering the complex questions of constitutional law at the heart of this appeal. Their interest in this appeal is in presenting a coherent interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process of Law Clause in accord with controlling U.S. Supreme Court precedent and the Constitution’s defense of individual liberty and the freedom against the irrational governmental deprivation of property rights. Based on this perspective, the proposed amicus brief urges this Court to hold that the “rational basis” standard of review operates as a rebuttable presumption in favor of legislation that may be overturned by evidence showing that the purpose of the regulation is illegitimate or that the means used to accomplish the ends are irrational. United States v. Carolene Prods. Co., 304 U.S. 144, 152 (1938)
(“[F]or regulatory legislation affecting ordinary commercial transactions is not to be pronounced unconstitutional unless in the light of the facts made known or generally assumed it is of such a character as to preclude the assumption that it rests upon some rational basis within the knowledge and experience of the legislators.”).
The proposed amicus brief argues that such a conclusion is in the public interest because a standard that does not require meaningful judicial engagement with the facts, frees any legislature to contrive whatever justification for a law that stands the best chance of passing a mere “magic words” test. Allowing the rule articulated by the court below to stand would undermine private property rights—and other constitutionally protected rights and liberties—by allowing such abuse to continue unchecked.
Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, the Court should grant this unopposed Motion and permit PLF, Manhattan Institute, and Reason Foundation to submit this brief amicus curiae.
Full Brief: Marfil v. City of New Braunfels