Rufo, A. v. City of Phila., Aplt. ( 2018 )

[J-8-2018] [MO: Baer, J.]
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
EASTERN DISTRICT
ANTHONY M. RUFO AND TR GETZ, LP : No. 22 EAP 2017
:
: Appeal from the Order of
v. : Commonwealth Court entered on
: 12/22/2016 at No. 2735 CD 2015
: (reargument denied 02/17/2017)
BOARD OF LICENSE AND INSPECTION : affirming the Order entered on
REVIEW AND CITY OF PHILADELPHIA : 09/22/2015 by the Court of Common
: Pleas, Philadelphia County, Civil
: Division at No. 3768 October Term
APPEAL OF: THE CITY OF : 2014.
PHILADELPHIA :
: ARGUED: May 16, 2018
CONCURRING OPINION
JUSTICE WECHT DECIDED: September 13, 2018
I join the Majority Opinion in full.
I write separately because, although the Majority applies the operative
constitutional standard, see Majority Opinion at 11 (citing Lutz v. Armour, 151 A.2d 108,
110 (Pa. 1959)) (“[T]o pass constitutional muster, the Code, and the provisions therein,
‘must not be unreasonable, unduly oppressive or patently beyond the necessities of the
case, and the means which it employs must have a real and substantial relation to the
objects sought to be attained.’”), I believe that this Court should abandon that test and
embrace the more deferential federal standard. See Shoul v. Pa., Dep't of Transp.,
Bureau of Driver Licensing, 173 A.3d 669, 690 (Pa. 2017) (Wecht, J., Concurring) (citing
Williamson v. Lee Optical of Oklahoma Inc., 348 U.S. 483, 487-88 (1955), for the
proposition that, under rational basis scrutiny, “[a] law need not be in every respect
logically consistent with its aims to be constitutional. It is enough that there is an evil at
hand for correction, and that it might be thought that the particular legislative measure
was a rational way to correct it.”); City of Phila. v. Lerner, 151 A.3d 1020, 1024 (Pa. 2016).
[J-8-2018] [MO: Baer, J.] - 2