Consequently, its due procedure claim falls using its equal security claim.
Plaintiff asserted a claim of breach of due procedure, however it rests for a passing fancy ground as their equal security declare that the ordinance doesn’t have logical foundation. Plaintiff just isn’t asserting it was rejected any procedural liberties to which it absolutely was entitled. Minnesota v. Clover Leaf Creamery Co., 449 U.S. 456, 470 n. 12, 101 S. Ct. 715, 66 L. Ed. 2d 659 (1981) (“From our summary under equal security, but, it follows a fortiori that the ban on plastic milk that is nonreturnable doesn’t break the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause: National Paint, 45 F.3d at 1129 refusing to think about declare that ordinance violates substantive due procedure liberties; financial legislation must certanly be examined under equal security maxims”); see additionally Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266, 273, 114 S. Ct. 807, 127 L. Ed. 2d 114 (1994) (“Where a certain amendment `provides an explicit textual supply of constitutional security’ against a specific kind of government behavior, ‘ that amendment, maybe maybe not the greater amount of general idea of substantive due procedure, should be the guide for analyzing these claims.'”)