Whether the state may deny equal protection of the laws and exclude people from a trade for the sole purpose of easing its regulatory burden, or whether restrictions on the right to enter a common and lawful occupation require more scrutiny?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Each year, dozens of individuals attempt to secure a “respite care” license in Louisiana, which would allow them to offer short-term relief to primary caregivers of special needs children. But state law excludes 75% of them from the process, no matter their qualifications, on the grounds that they are “unneeded.” The Department’s sole reason for this scheme is “eas[ing] its regulatory burden,” which it contends “self-evidently” benefits the public. Ms. Newell-Davis brought a civil rights lawsuit arguing that her exclusion from a common and lawful occupation deprived her of equal treatment, due process, and the privileges or immunities protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. The district court ruled that reducing the government’s administrative burden satisfies rational basis scrutiny and that Ms. Newell-Davis’s Privileges or Immunities claim was barred by the Slaughter-House Cases. The Fifth Circuit affirmed. The questions presented are: 1. Whether the state may deny equal protection of the laws and exclude people from a trade for the sole purpose of easing its regulatory burden, or whether restrictions on the right to enter a common and lawful occupation require more scrutiny? 2. Whether this Court should overrule the Slaughter-House Cases and hold that the right to enter a common and lawful occupation is a privilege or immunity protected by the Fourteenth Amendment?