Constitutional right to earn a living: a debate

I know having a constitutional right to earn a living might sound like remote possibility, but a judge from the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals is raising the argument. Read on to get a sense of the reasoning and what it could mean for you.

Can fading tans be rescued by the Constitution?
Business at the Golden Glow Tanning Salon was on the upswing. It was, that is, until a collision with the pandemic and a city ordinance shutting down its business for seven weeks.

The ordinance, because it’s a law enacted by the government, is what is called “state-action.” When the government acts it must (as a matter of constitutional law) treat all in a similar situation in an identical way. This is called equal protection of the laws.

The tanning salon argued that the city ordinance violated this bedrock principle by treating big box retailers and even liquor stores as essential businesses that could stay open and them as a nonessential that must shutter.

Moreover, the city responded that tanning salons, when compared to a liquor store, were not “so important to society that the benefits of continued operations . . . outweighed the risks of spreading the virus.” So, the tanning salon wasn’t deemed an essential business.