Cal. Apartment Assn. v. City of Pasadena (2025)

Citation: Cal. Apartment Assn. v. City of Pasadena (2025)
Parent Document: Cal. Apartment Assn. v. City of Pasadena (2025)
Jurisdiction: California (state)
Effective Date: 2025-12-18
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10761039/cal-apartment-assn-v-city-of-pasadena/ ↗

Full Text

1,447 chars

42
       As stated, rational basis review applies when the
challenged law does not implicate a fundamental right or suspect
class. (Johnson, supra, 60 Cal.4th at p. 881.) The right to hold
public office is not a fundamental right under the equal
protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. (Rittenband v.
Cory (1984) 159 Cal.App.3d 410, 420-421; accord, Claussen v.
Pence (7th Cir. 2016) 826 F.3d 381, 387 [“the right to assume
office is not a fundamental right”].) Nor is the right to be a
candidate for public office. (Boyer v. County of Ventura (2019)
33 Cal.App.5th 49, 57; Kern County Employees’ Retirement Assn.
v. Bellino (2005) 126 Cal.App.4th 781, 794; accord, Bullock v.
Carter (1972) 405 U.S. 134, 143; Biener v. Calio (3d Cir. 2004)
361 F.3d 206, 214 [“The right to run for office has not been
deemed a fundamental right.”].) Further, “landlords are not a
suspect class.” (Schnuck v. City of Santa Monica (9th Cir. 1991)
935 F.2d 171, 176.) Neither are wealthy individuals, to the
extent petitioners suggest landlords are being treated differently
based on their “economic status” and property ownership. (See
Jensen v. Franchise Tax Bd., supra, 178 Cal.App.4th at pp. 434-
435 [“We are unaware of any case authority holding that wealthy
individuals form a ‘suspect class deserving of a heightened degree
of scrutiny.’ ”]; NAACP v. Jones (9th Cir. 1997) 131 F.3d 1317,
1322 [“[w]ealth is not a suspect category in Equal Protection

Other Sections in This Document (114)

Full Text