CC PACKET 10271987 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

DORSEY `& WHITNEY Mayor Sundland and Members r� • of the City Council October 16, 1987 Page 2 Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas, 94 S. Ct . 1536, 1540 ( 1974 ) . Second, under Minn. Stat. § 349. 213, subd.' 1, the City may adopt "more stringent regulation of any form of lawful gambling within its jurisdiction. " Although this subdivision prohibits the City from imposing licensing or permit requirements on organizations licensed by the CGCB, I see nothing that would prevent the City from imposing across-the-board restrictions which would have the effect of prohibiting certain types of organizations from conducting gambling in the City. The City might require, for example, that all lawful gambling within its jurisdiction be supervised and conducted exclusively by local organizations or chapters whose members do not conduct gambling activities in any other jurisdiction. It is not entirely clear that such an ordinance would constitute regulation of a "form of lawful gambling" within the meaning of § 349 . 213, subd. 1, but at least until the statute has been authoritatively interpreted, I think you are entitled to construe it broadly. Again, however, the Constitution imposes limits on your freedom to discriminate against out-of-state residents . The Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Fourth Amendment requires states and their political subdivisions to treat residents and non-residents equally with respect to those privileges which are " 'fundamental ' to the promotion of interstate harmony, " unless the state or political subdivision can show (1) that "substantial reason[s ] " exists for the difference in treatment, and (2 ) that the degree of discrimination bears a close relation to such reasons . United Building and Construction Trades Council v. Mayor and Council of the City of Camden, 104 S. Ct. 1020, 1027-29 (19 84 ) opportunity of nonresidents to seek employment on public works contracts falls within the protection of the Privileges and Immunities Clause) ; see also Baldwin v. Fish and Game Commission of Montana, 436 U. S. 371 (1978) (elk hunting by nonresidents is not a protected privilege) . Beyond the right to travel , to seek employment, to bring suit, - and to acquire and dispose of property, it is not clear which privileges are sufficiently fundamental to be protected. The privilege of conducting gambling for charitable purposes does not, however, seem to bear heavily upon "the vitality of the Nation as a single entity . " Baldwin, 436 U.S . at 383 . An ordinance limiting gambling activities to local organizations would probably be constitutional . 2 . Can the City limit the locations where lawful gambling may be conducted? •