Olsen v. State of California

A legislative “desire to harm a politically unpopular group cannot constitute a legitimate government interest.” United States Dep't of Agric. v. Moreno 413 U.S. 528, 534 (1973).

Plaintiffs appealed the district court’s denial of their motion for a preliminary injunction and dismissal of their Second Amended Complaint regarding their request to enjoin enforcement of amended California Assembly Bill 5, 2019 Cal. Stats. Ch. 296 (A.B. 5). The Plaintiffs argued that A.B. 5 violated The Equal Protection Clauses, the Due Process Clause, the Contract Clauses, and the Bill of Attainder Clauses of the U.S. and California Constitutions. Defendants responded that the Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint failed to state a claim on which relief could be granted. As stated in United States Dep’t of Agric. v. Moreno, a legislative “desire to harm a politically unpopular group cannot constitute a legitimate government interest.” 413 U.S. 528, 534 (1973). The Court found that the Plaintiffs could plausibly allege that the wide-ranging exemptions to various professions in the bill were exclusionary and differentiated Uber, Postmates, and other similar businesses from other gig-based business models. This was supported by the legislative history and public comments made by California assemblymembers. REVERSED for the dismissal of Plaintiffs’ equal protection claims, AFFIRMED for the dismissal of the due process, contract clause, and bill of attainder claims, and REMANDED for consideration for the denial of the Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction.