Question

Ralph nader, a member of the school board in san joaquin county, is appalled at the amount of junk food in the schools. he convinces the state legislature to pass an ordinance that no stores may sell any unhealthy, junk food within 500 feet of any school, including colleges or day care centers. a professor of business law raises the issue of whether the regulation is valid and is told that it is a valid exercise of the jurisdiction's police power to protect its citizens. convenience stores balk at the regulation and challenge it in court. in determining whether the law is constitutional, which of the following will a court likely ask?

a) whether the state regulation is needed for a compelling reason.
b) whether the state regulation is needed for a compelling reason and also
c) whether the state regulation will impact tax revenue.
d) whether the state regulation is rationally related to a legitimate state end.
e) whether the state regulation is needed for an important reason.

Answer 1

A court determining the constitutionality of an ordinance limiting junk food sales near schools will likely ask if the state regulation is rationally related to a legitimate state end, examining if the ordinance serves a legitimate interest in a reasonable manner and if it is the least restrictive means available.

Step-by-step explanation:

In evaluating whether Ralph Nader's initiative through the state legislature to pass an ordinance restricting the sale of unhealthy, junk food within 500 feet of any school is constitutional, the court will likely apply the rational basis test. This test determines whether the state regulation is rationally related to a legitimate state end. The test examines if the regulation serves a legitimate governmental interest and if the means to achieve it are reasonable and not arbitrary. Specifically, the court will consider if the regulation promotes public health, safety, or general welfare in a way that is reasonably necessary for its purpose.

Given the context of the problem with unhealthy food contributing to issues such as childhood obesity, the ordinance's goal of protecting children's health could be seen as a legitimate government interest. However, the court will also assess if there are any less restrictive means available that would accomplish the same objective without unduly infringing on freedoms or commercial business interests. Ensuring that the law is not more restrictive than necessary is key in this assessment.