08-07-2017 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

RELEVANT LINKS: League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 1/4/2016 Regulating Peddlers, Solicitors and Transient Merchants Page 15 B.Equal protection U.S. Const. amend. XIV. Minn. Const. art. I, § 2. The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides that no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of its laws. This protection is additionally reinforced under the Minnesota Constitution. A local government cannot generally favor one group over another. Equal protection concerns arise when: •Local regulations treat in-state (“locals”) different than out-of-state merchants. •City-based merchants are treated differently than other in-state businesspeople. •Within general definitions for peddlers, solicitors, or transient merchants, groups of merchants are distinguished from one another. •Local regulations specifically allow the door-to-door or transient sale of one type of product or service, but prohibit the similar sale of another. 112 A.L.R. 63. Kalra v. State of Minnesota, 580 F. Supp. 971 (D. Minn. 1983). State statutes or city ordinances that discriminate against non-residents by refusing to grant them a license (or grant licenses on different terms) are generally unconstitutional. The courts have indicated non-citizens also fall within the coverage of the equal protection clause. State ex rel. Greenwood v. Nolan, 108 Minn. 170, 122 N.W. 255 (1909). Minnesota courts invalidated a city ordinance that discriminated between resident and nonresident peddlers since such restrictions denied nonresidents the privileges enjoyed by resident citizens. 94 A.L.R. 1076. State v. Schmidt, 280 Minn. 281, 159 N.W.2d 113 (1968). Regulations that apply only to nonresidents are likely void. For example, an ordinance requiring a transient merchant from outside the county to post a bond was invalidated because it violated the non-resident’s equal protection rights. That court would not follow the assumption that salespersons living within the county were solvent and financially responsible, but individuals residing elsewhere would not satisfy a possible civil judgment. Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 60 S. Ct. 900 (1940). Cities should be able to provide for their community’s general welfare without invading an individual’s rights. Unless there is a clear, definable grounds for making a distinction (an almost certain adverse impact to the public), such divisions are not permissible. C.Commerce Clause U.S. Const. art. 1, § 8, cl. 3. City of Waseca v. Braun, 206 Minn. 154, 288 N.W. 229 (1939). The Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution provides Congress with the exclusive authority to regulate trade between the states.