Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →

Ndioba Niang, et al. v. Brittany Tomblinson, et al.

Paid petition · United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, No. 16-3968 · judgment January 11, 2018

GVR'd · October 9, 2018

Pre-decision estimate: 2% cert probability

Before the decision, well below the 4.1% base rate, with no standout signals pointing toward a grant.

Questions presented

At summary judgment, the Eighth Circuit rejected a rational-basis challenge to a regulatory scheme despite undisputed evidence that the scheme had only an incidental connection to any legitimate government interest and imposed substantial burdens unrelated to any government interest. The court upheld the application of Missouri’s cosmetology/barber licensing scheme to African-style hair braiders despite uncontroverted evidence that very little of the mandated training or testing had any relevance to braiders and that braiders would have to take a thousand or more hours of admittedly irrelevant and expensive training and testing before legally practicing their craft. This ruling creates a split of reasoning with the Fifth, Sixth, and Ninth Circuits regarding whether, under rational-basis review, any incidental connection to a government interest is sufficient to sustain an entire, burdensome regulatory scheme. The ruling below also compounds a mature split between the Second and Fourth Circuits and the First, Fifth, Sixth, and Ninth Circuits regarding the weight that evidence should be given under rational-basis review. The Questions Presented are:

What framework should courts apply when analyzing the constitutionality of economic regulations under the Due Process or Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Should the Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1873), be overturned?

Counsel of record

For petitioner
Daniel Lamar Alban
Institute for Justice

For respondent
Julie Marie Blake
Missouri Attorney General's Office

Case

Conference history
Distributed for 2 conferences

Amicus briefs
5 cert-stage

Proceedings

Nov 13 2018
JUDGMENT ISSUED.
Oct 09 2018
The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit is vacated and the case is remanded to that court with instructions to direct the District Court to dismiss the case as moot. See United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U. S. 36 (1950). Justice Kavanaugh took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
Sep 19 2018
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/5/2018.
Sep 13 2018
Joint Suggestion of Mootness filed by petitioners Ndioba Niang, et al. and respondents Brittany Tomblinson, et al.
Aug 29 2018
Response Requested. (Due September 28, 2018)
Aug 22 2018
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/24/2018.
Aug 15 2018
Waiver of right of respondents Brittany Tomblinson, et al. to respond filed.
May 22 2018
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including August 15, 2018.
May 17 2018
Motion to extend the time to file a response from June 13, 2018 to August 15, 2018, submitted to The Clerk.
May 14 2018
Brief amicus curiae of The Rutherford Institute filed.
May 14 2018
Brief amicus curiae of Cato Institute filed.
May 10 2018
Brief amicus curiae of Goldwater Institute filed.
May 10 2018
Brief amicus curiae of Pacific Legal Foundation filed.
May 10 2018
Brief amici curiae of Public Choice Scholars filed.
Apr 24 2018
Blanket Consent filed by Petitioners, Ndioba Niang, et al.
Apr 19 2018
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including June 13, 2018.
Apr 19 2018
Blanket Consent filed by Respondents, Brittany Tomblinson, et al.
Apr 17 2018
Motion to extend the time to file a response from May 14, 2018 to June 13, 2018, submitted to The Clerk.
Apr 11 2018
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due May 14, 2018)