focus of constitutional inquiry in California

2025The proper focus of constitutional inquiry is the group for whom the law is a restriction, not the group for whom the law is irrelevant.’ ” (American Academy of Pediatrics v. Lungren (1997) 16 Cal.4th 307, 345 (plur. opn. of George, C.

2004Our focus is on persons and properties that would be affected by the ordinance. “ ‘The proper focus of constitutional inquiry is the group for whom the law is a restriction, not the group for whom the law is irrelevant.’ ” (American Academy of Pediatrics v. Lungren (1997) 16 Cal.4th 307, 345 [ 66 Cal.Rptr.2d 210 , 940 P.2d 797 ] (American Academy).) The City further suggests that, even where the ordinance applies, any governmental invasion is “indirect and attenuated.” According to the City, the ordinance “does not require plaintiffs to own a unit without an ERO.

2023(E.g., T-Mobile West LLC v. City and County of San Francisco (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 334, 345, fn. 12 [rejecting application of lenient standard as appropriate only for First Amendment and abortion rights], affd. (2019) 6 Cal.5th 1107 ; T-Mobile West LLC v. City and County of San Francisco, supra, 6 Cal.5th at p. 1117, fn. 6 [declining to settle on a “precise formulation of the applicable standard”].) Because plaintiffs’ argument fits squarely within the rationale expressed in American Academy of Pediatrics v. Lungren for measuring the constitutionality of statutes by looking only at the behavior

2023(E.g., T-Mobile West LLC v. City and County of San Francisco (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 334, 345, fn. 12 [rejecting application of lenient standard as appropriate only for First Amendment and abortion rights], affd. (2019) 6 Cal.5th 1107 ; T-Mobile West LLC v. City and County of San Francisco, supra, 6 Cal.5th at p. 1117, fn. 6 [declining to settle on a “precise formulation of the applicable standard”].) Because plaintiffs’ argument fits squarely within the rationale expressed in American Academy of Pediatrics v. Lungren for measuring the constitutionality of statutes by looking only at the behavior

2023(E.g., T-Mobile West LLC v. City and County of San Francisco (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 334, 345, fn. 12 [rejecting application of lenient standard as appropriate only for First Amendment and abortion rights], affd. (2019) 6 Cal.5th 1107 ; T-Mobile West LLC v. City and County of San Francisco, supra, 6 Cal.5th at p. 1117, fn. 6 [declining to settle on a “precise formulation of the applicable standard”].) Because plaintiffs’ argument fits squarely within the rationale expressed in American Academy of Pediatrics v. Lungren for measuring the constitutionality of statutes by looking only at the behavior

2023(E.g., T-Mobile West LLC v. City and County of San Francisco (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 334, 345, fn. 12 [rejecting application of lenient standard as appropriate only for First Amendment and abortion rights], affd. (2019) 6 Cal.5th 1107 ; T-Mobile West LLC v. City and County of San Francisco, supra, 6 Cal.5th at p. 1117, fn. 6 [declining to settle on a “precise formulation of the applicable standard”].) Because plaintiffs’ argument fits squarely within the rationale expressed in American Academy of Pediatrics v. Lungren for measuring the constitutionality of statutes by looking only at the behavior

2016Viewed in this light, we agree with the trial court that the legality of former section 317(e)(4) does not hinge on the circumstances of any particular individual; rather, its legality hinges on “only the text of the measure itself.” (See Tobe v. City of Santa Ana, supra, 9 Cal.4th at p. 1084.) As such, we conclude plaintiffs’ facial challenge to the Ordinance was appropriate.