Snowboarders v. Alta Ski Area

So much drama in the LCC 

Alright, so many of you know that a number of snowboarders have brought legal action against Alta and the U.S. Forest Service, alleging that Alta's policy of prohibiting snowboarders from riding the lifts is a violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

If you didn't, you can read about it here: http://unofficialnetworks.com/snowboarders-sue-alta-ski-area-forest-service-violation-fourteenth-amendment-united-states-constitution-127894/

In short, I don't think these snowboarders have snowball's chance in...well most of the Pacific Northwest right now. If you want to take a conservative view, the 14th amendment was not passed with snowboarders in mind. Taking a more liberal view, it seems a little absurd to put the centuries long discrimination faced by racial minorities and women in the same category as not being allowed to ride a chair lift.

But, before we get ahead of ourselves,  let's do a little back of the napkin constitutional analysis:

1. Is there state action?

The 14th Amendment equal protection clause prohibits the states from denying citizens equal protection under the law. So the first question, is whether the state has taken action to deny anyone equal protection.  In Burton v. Wilmington Parking Authority, 365 U.S. 715, 81 S. Ct. 856, 6 L. Ed. 2d 45 (1961), the Court found state action when a state agency leased property to a restaurant that refused to serve African Americans. It stated that state action in support of discrimination exists when there is a "close nexus" between the functions of the state and the private discrimination. Well, the federal government does own the land on which Alta Ski Area operates, and it does lease the land to Alta Ski Area to operate its lifts. So maybe  by leasing the land, we have a state action...

2. Are Snowboarders a Suspect Class?

No. A group's classification determines what level of scrutiny the court will apply to its analysis. Discrimination against a Suspect Class (e.g. Race) gets strict scrutiny, which means the state better have a damn good reason for the discrimination (hint: it pretty much never does). If the group is not a suspect class, then the discrimination must on be rationally related to a legitimate government purpose (very low standard).

The courts have provided certain tests to see if a class is Suspect:

A. Are snowboarders a discrete and insular class? 

No, Snowboarders are not discrete because there are some snowboarders who also ski (as this is the most important distinction). Snowboarders are not insular because they mostly privileged white people (along with skiers) who are present in all parts of society. So, just no.

B. Do snowboarders have some immutable characteristic? 

No. What you strap to your feet is not immutable.

C. Importance of the interest at stake. 

If education is not a fundamental right (see San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez. 411 U.S. 1 (1977)) Snowboarding is not a fundamental right. So, no, snowboarding is not an important enough interest to classify snowboarders as a suspect class.

3. Does "Discrimination" Against Snowboards Pass Rationality Review?

So because snowboarders are not a suspect class, the courts review discrimination on a rational basis, i.e. the state action must be rationally related to a legitimate purpose. This is a very low standard. A couple thoughts on legitimate state purposes:

Safety: Based on Alta ski area's unique terrain, which requires a lot of traversing. In many places, boot packers would interfere with skiers on the traverses putting both skiers and snowboarders at risk. A stretch? Maybe. But Plausible.

History: Alta has always been skiers only. I don't really buy this one because historical discrimination hasn't really been recognized as a legitimate government purpose. EDIT: Apparently Alta briefly allowed Snowboarders in the 1980s...so no real historical basis for the ban of snowboards.

Maintenance of snow quality: Alta is known for having some of the best snow in the world. Maybe Jackson has better terrain, and maybe Whistler has more vert. But in Alta, it falls lighter and deeper than it does anywhere else. It is a national treasure unmatched in any other part of the world.  Snowboards often affect snow in a way that compacts it, diminishing the snow quality. Again, a stretch, but we're working with a low bar here.

Conclusion

This case is probably going to overcome initial procedural hurdles and be heard on the merits. Shortly thereafter, the court will rule no equal protection violation has occurred.