KY Minimum Wage Increase Struck Down (by SCoKy)

A few month back I went to my weekend job delivering pizzas and was told I was getting a raise. The city of Lexington had raised the minimum wage. This didn’t affect me much because I only make that when not on a delivery and I only work ~10 hours a week there. Now it seems that Kentucky’s SC decided that cities can’t raise minimum wage. Is that how it is in other states? I was under the impression that NYC has a higher-than-national minimum wage, but IDK if that’s a city or state thing.

I guess we’ll see if my (and others’) pay raise stays.

So, what think y’all? Should cities be able to set their own minimum wage? I don’t see why a city or state or county or whatever should not be able to. The “patchwork quilt of employment laws” doesn’t seem to be a problem in regards to different sales tax rates.

The STATE has all powers not reserved for the federal government and not reserved to the individual by the constitution. All municipalities are creatures of the state. They have no powers to regulate ANYTHING not delegated to them by the state. I don’t know what Kentucky delegates to cities or counties, but if the state legislature is opposed to local minimum wages, it’s game over legally.

Like almost every question of this nature, it depends on the state.

States and cities/towns are not equivalent political units in the U.S. States are semi-sovereign (not a subdivision of the Federal government) but cities and towns derive any power that they have from the state.

By definition, if a state Supreme Court says that a city/town cannot do something, then it can’t because the state granted their powers and responsibilities in the first place and can challenge or change them at any time.

There is no Constitutional right for cities or towns to be allowed to set their own minimum wage in the U.S. Constitution and Kentucky state law apparently doesn’t have one either or at least they don’t now that the state Supreme Court has ruled on it.

The decision is completely legitimate. Why? Because the Kentucky Supreme Court said so. That is all that matters. There may be different outcomes in other states.

But the KYSC cannot rule willy-nilly. If the state has a statute saying the MW cannot be set at the sub-state level, then fine. But they can’t just make this stuff up.

St. Louis tried raising the minimum wage unilaterally and it wasstruck down by the courts.

The whole minimum wage issue is now in front of theMissouri Supreme Court.

It may be the other way around, that cities, counties, etc., may only make rules when specifically granted that power by the state. And only as narrowly specified. I don’t know how Dillon-y Kentucky is.

I don’t know much about how Kentucky law works but I don’t think it would have to be that specific. The decision could be based on a much larger principle or precedent that determines what powers cities and towns have. The U.S. Supreme Court does similar things all the time.

I can’t actually find the opinion or ruling or whatever it’s called, unless I’m missing a link from the OP’s article. I found similar one for Louisville, Kentucky Restaurant Ass’n v. Louisville/Jefferson County Metro Government :: 2016 :: Kentucky Supreme Court Decisions :: Kentucky Case Law :: Kentucky Law :: US Law :: Justia

It looks like the local law may not forbid what the state law specifically allows.

Exactly.

If Kentucky follows Dillon’s Rule, then there’s no need for a law forbidding cities’ exercise of power. The default in such a state is the city has no power not granted to it by the state.

Wow.

Kentucky is NOT a Dillon’s Rule state. It’s a home rule state.

OK, I’m not sure what they were thinking.

Here’s the opinion, if you want to take a gander. This Kentuckian would appreciate any insight.

The law says that a local municipality can’t make something illegal that’s explicitly legal under state law. The majority says that’s what applies here. The minimum waget law says it’s legal to pay employees $7.25 an hour, so the Louisville law, which would make that illegal, violates that.

The dissent says that the minimum wage statute establishes a minimum wage, and doesn’t prevent localities from establishing a higher minimum wage.

You do realize that the Kentucky Supreme court isn’t necessarily ruling in regards to the US Constitution, but in regards to the state of Kentucky constitution, which has no bearing on New York City.

Is someone saying otherwise?

the dissent and 65 cents will get me a Senior coffee at McDonalds !

We’ve got all sorts of different MW laws in CA, but given the size of the state and the various economies one finds in different areas, that makes sense. I’ve never heard of a court challenge here.

The Kentucky Supreme Court is possibly correct in its result (as Justice Hughes claims). This is because Kentucky’s constitution precludes cities from passing laws in conflict with a statute. The Kentucky legislature has passed a law that makes any local law “in conflict” with a state statute if it is dealing with the same subject that the legislature has passed a “comprehensive scheme of legislation.” In other words, in Kentucky, if the legislature adopts a set of laws that comprehensively deal with a subject area, localities become precluded from adopting their own, supplementary laws, even if those supplementary laws are not directly in conflict with the specific provisions of the statutes.

I leave it to the people of Kentucky to decide if they agree with the majority or the dissenting justice on the question of a “comprehensive statutory scheme.”

Where I find the KSC’s analysis to be deficient is in the assertion that, by setting a minimum wage state-wide, the legislature pre-empted any higher minimum wage in a city. That analysis says, in essence, that by letting employers statewide pay the set minimum, any city-specific higher minimum precludes the employer from doing something expressly authorized by the state, and, thus, is in conflict with the state’s minimum wage law. That sort of thinking is a ridiculous example of a false dichotomy. In essence, it could be expanded to preclude ANY city-specific law, on the theory that, either such a law restricts people from doing that which they are allowed to do by the legislature, or it forces them to do something that the legislature allows them not to do.

The court’s analysis of that concept is very, VERY similar in thought process to the concept behind the Lochner era substantive due process cases. They seem to be looking at this as a “right to contract” type of situation. That is, by setting the minimum where they did state-wide, the legislature establishes a RIGHT on the part of employers to contract at that level, one which the cities cannot abrogate. I would hope that sort of thinking gets short shrift going forward.

Served to you by people who make $7.25 an hour…

To be fair, I (the OP) mentioned that I thought that NY state and/or NYC might have a higher minimum wage than $7.25, as a possible example of where this sort of thing might be kosher.

Thanks for all of the answers. Does this mean that there is no way for Lexington and Louisville to have a higher MW without forcing businesses in BFE, Ky from paying the same? The cost of living varies a lot around here (as in other states too, I’m sure).

I’d say it’s very very similar to the field preemption / conflict preemption analysis for federal vs state law.