# What legal principle or court ruling precludes laws targeted at a specific individual or group? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [August 21, 2013, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-legal-principle-or-court-ruling-precludes-laws-targeted-at-a-specific-individual-or-group/666816 "2013-08-21T17:57:41Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![dstarfire](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dstarfire/32/5762_2.png) [@dstarfire](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dstarfire)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2013, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-legal-principle-or-court-ruling-precludes-laws-targeted-at-a-specific-individual-or-group/666816/1 "2013-08-21T17:57:41Z")
So, what legal principle, court ruling, or law prevents legislation targeted at a specific entity? In a recent thread one flaw with a posted theory/idea was that it involved a law targeted at specific individual or small group (and not a member of an explicitly protected group like race or religion). ---
**Author:** ![friedo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/8edcca/32.png) [@friedo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/friedo)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2013, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-legal-principle-or-court-ruling-precludes-laws-targeted-at-a-specific-individual-or-group/666816/2 "2013-08-21T18:10:42Z")
Who says such a principal exists? Congress even has a special term for laws that target a specific individual or group: private laws. The most recent one was S. 285, “A Bill For the relief of Sopuruchi Chukwueke.” > [@](#): > > (a) In General- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for the purposes of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.), Sopuruchi Chukwueke shall be deemed to have been lawfully admitted to, and remained in, the United States, and shall be eligible for adjustment of status to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence under section 245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1255) upon filing an application for such adjustment of status. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2013, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-legal-principle-or-court-ruling-precludes-laws-targeted-at-a-specific-individual-or-group/666816/3 "2013-08-21T18:23:37Z")
As that other thread correctly said, a [Bill of attainder](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_attainder) is specifically prohibited, not any other type of “legislation targeted at a specific entity”. > [@](#): > > A bill of attainder (also known as an act of attainder or writ of attainder) is an act of a legislature declaring a person or group of persons guilty of some crime and punishing them without privilege of a judicial trial. Where is the confusion coming in? ---
**Author:** ![dstarfire](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dstarfire/32/5762_2.png) [@dstarfire](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dstarfire)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2013, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-legal-principle-or-court-ruling-precludes-laws-targeted-at-a-specific-individual-or-group/666816/4 "2013-08-21T18:49:18Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > As that other thread correctly said, a [Bill of attainder](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_attainder) is specifically prohibited, not any other type of “legislation targeted at a specific entity”. So, **theoretically** , Congress could pass a law saying “Joe Jackson must bathe or shower at least once every two days” (Joe Jackson (fictitious outside this theoretical example) has unusually stinky body odor and some hygiene issues), correct? > [@](#): > > Where is the confusion coming in? No confusion (not now, anyway). I just like seeing how common American ethics are implemented in law, and discovering ways the law isn’t as messed up or easily abused as many people think. (It’s still messed up, but there’s usually a semi-consistent logic to it and some limited protections against abuse). ---
**Author:** ![Quercus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/7ab992/32.png) [@Quercus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quercus)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2013, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-legal-principle-or-court-ruling-precludes-laws-targeted-at-a-specific-individual-or-group/666816/5 "2013-08-21T20:12:03Z")
> [@dstarfire](#): > > So, **theoretically** , Congress could pass a law saying “Joe Jackson must bathe or shower at least once every two days” (Joe Jackson (fictitious outside this theoretical example) has unusually stinky body odor and some hygiene issues), correct? In addition to the Bill of Attainder clause in the U.S. and I think all state constitutions, there’s also the general idea-- and you’ll need a lawyer for more detail, but courts have at times upheld this – that laws must have a (at least barely-plausible) relation to legitimate government concerns, both in their goal and in whether the law would actually affect reaching that goal. This is of course, aside from the particular issue of whether the U.S. Constitution grants Congress jurisdiction over a particular area or not, as by default states have jurisdiction. So, Joe Jackson might concede that public health and eliminating odor nuisances are valid concerns of the State of Mississippi, but argue it has no legitimate interest in what he does on his own private property, so there’s no valid reason for the a Mississippi law specifying what he must do when not in public. (If the U.S. Congress passed the “Joe Jackson Bathing Law”, he’s got an even better argument: personal hygiene, or even public health in general, isn’t anything delegated to Congress by the Constitution; the U.S. might convince a judge that it’s related to interstate commerce, but that’s a bit of a stretch). Finally, based purely on a quick reading of the Wikipedia article, it seems to me that Joe Jackson could claim that the forced bathing is punishment, and therefore the law is in fact a Bill of Attainder. ---
**Author:** ![pravnik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8edcca/32.png) [@pravnik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pravnik)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2013, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-legal-principle-or-court-ruling-precludes-laws-targeted-at-a-specific-individual-or-group/666816/6 "2013-08-21T20:17:57Z")
> [@Quercus](#): > > (If the U.S. Congress passed the “Joe Jackson Bathing Law”, he’s got an even better argument: personal hygiene, or even public health in general, isn’t anything delegated to Congress by the Constitution; the U.S. might convince a judge that it’s related to interstate commerce, but that’s a bit of a stretch). I was going to crack a joke about how badly he must stink if it’s substantially affecting interstate commerce. Maybe if he lives in Washington and is just stinking up the Capitol they could justify it under the Necessary and Proper Clause. ---
**Author:** ![Alley\_Dweller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alley_dweller/32/430_2.png) [@Alley\_Dweller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alley_Dweller)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2013, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-legal-principle-or-court-ruling-precludes-laws-targeted-at-a-specific-individual-or-group/666816/7 "2013-08-21T20:30:25Z")
If everyone except Joe Jackson were free to skip their bath, I would argue equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. ---
**Author:** ![md2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/73ab20/32.png) [@md2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/md2000)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2013, 8:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-legal-principle-or-court-ruling-precludes-laws-targeted-at-a-specific-individual-or-group/666816/8 "2013-08-21T20:43:35Z")
> [@Alley\_Dweller](#): > > If everyone except Joe Jackson were free to skip their bath, I would argue equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. Which points to the other issue - laws must not violate the constitution, as it trumps mere law. For example, a law that mandates all businesses must close Sunday (or- be open Saturday)… It may be argued that this law is applicable to everyone, but if it appears that it is designed or the net effect is to put the screws to Jews and Moslems, it can be argued it violates freedom of religion. it’s not if a law “targets” a person or group, it’s invalid if it violates a specific protection - race, creed, colour, equal protection, freedom of religion, freedom of speech. ---
**Author:** ![LawMonkey](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/d6d6ee/32.png) [@LawMonkey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LawMonkey)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2013, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-legal-principle-or-court-ruling-precludes-laws-targeted-at-a-specific-individual-or-group/666816/9 "2013-08-21T21:18:52Z")
> [@Alley\_Dweller](#): > > If everyone except Joe Jackson were free to skip their bath, I would argue equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. Fifth/Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection was my thought as well, but it’s not a prohibition, as interpreted by the SCOTUS to date (for reasons that are obvious if you think about it: almost every law has the effect of preferring or discriminating against some set of people or entities somewhere). You just have to make it past a hurdle of height dictated by who you’re targeting or effecting. (I actually remember there being dicta in some case or another that discussed the possibility of a “class of one” in an equal protection context–someone who’s had con law more recently than I can feel free to chime in.) ---
**Author:** ![Tom\_Tildrum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e95f7d/32.png) [@Tom\_Tildrum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tom_Tildrum)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2013, 12:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-legal-principle-or-court-ruling-precludes-laws-targeted-at-a-specific-individual-or-group/666816/10 "2013-08-22T00:59:35Z")
> [@Quercus](#): > > (If the U.S. Congress passed the “Joe Jackson Bathing Law”, he’s got an even better argument: personal hygiene, or even public health in general, isn’t anything delegated to Congress by the Constitution; the U.S. might convince a judge that it’s related to interstate commerce, but that’s a bit of a stretch). He’s affecting interstate commerce by not buying soap or deodorant. ---
**Author:** ![Mr\_Downtown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8e8cbc/32.png) [@Mr\_Downtown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr_Downtown)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2013, 4:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-legal-principle-or-court-ruling-precludes-laws-targeted-at-a-specific-individual-or-group/666816/11 "2013-08-22T04:34:18Z")
State constitutions often contain a principle of “general applicability” for state legislation. Here’s Illinois’s: SECTION 13. SPECIAL LEGISLATION The General Assembly shall pass no special or local law when a general law is or can be made applicable. Whether a general law is or can be made applicable shall be a matter for judicial determination. But when the Illinois General Assembly passes a statute that applies to “all counties with a population of more than four million,” it’s pretty certain they’re singling out Cook County. ---
**Author:** ![md2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/73ab20/32.png) [@md2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/md2000)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2013, 4:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-legal-principle-or-court-ruling-precludes-laws-targeted-at-a-specific-individual-or-group/666816/12 "2013-08-22T04:46:46Z")
_“The law in its infinite wisdom forbids rich and poor alike from sleeping under the bridges.”_ ---
**Author:** ![Space\_Vegetable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/6de8d8/32.png) [@Space\_Vegetable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Space_Vegetable)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2013, 6:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-legal-principle-or-court-ruling-precludes-laws-targeted-at-a-specific-individual-or-group/666816/13 "2013-08-22T06:16:05Z")
> [@Mr\_Downtown](#): > > But when the Illinois General Assembly passes a statute that applies to “all counties with a population of more than four million,” it’s pretty certain they’re singling out Cook County. Pennsylvania has something similar. The legislature uses “class 1 city” to target Philadelphia, “class 2” when they feel like writing laws for Pittsburgh only, and “class 2A” for Scranton. In this way, the state constitution protects the people from clearer legislation. ---
**Author:** ![DataX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@DataX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DataX)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2013, 6:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-legal-principle-or-court-ruling-precludes-laws-targeted-at-a-specific-individual-or-group/666816/14 "2013-08-22T06:24:07Z")
Also reminds me of Maryland’s attempt to regulate Walmart by limiting a bill to employers of a certain size and then exempting some of the others that fell in this category. > **[Judge Calls Maryland Health Mandate Unconstitutional | ThinkAdvisor](https://www.thinkadvisor.com/2006/07/19/judge-calls-maryland-health-mandate-unconstitutional/)** > > A federal judge in Baltimore has overturned Maryland's "Wal-Mart" health coverage mandate law, ruling in favor of the Retail Industry Leaders Association.The Maryland law, enacted ... Was partially struck down on equal protection grounds, but that is an oversimplification of what happened. ---
**Author:** ![denquixote](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b9bd4f/32.png) [@denquixote](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/denquixote)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2013, 6:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-legal-principle-or-court-ruling-precludes-laws-targeted-at-a-specific-individual-or-group/666816/15 "2013-08-22T06:37:38Z")
IANAL but: Does this have something to do with the recent enactment of voter ID legislation, which is arguably directed at minorities and the poor? If it can be shown perhaps that, even though the law is not directed at a particular minority group, the overall affect is to disproportionately deny e.g. African Americans their rights then the state’s interest in enacting such a law would come under heightened scrutiny if challenged in a Federal court This principle would also apply to free speech legislation, more precisely laws prohibiting certain forms of speech or laws affecting one gender. There is no law that says such laws cannot be enacted, but rather that because of the danger they must be subjected to increased or more exacting scrutiny. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2013, 10:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-legal-principle-or-court-ruling-precludes-laws-targeted-at-a-specific-individual-or-group/666816/16 "2013-08-22T10:23:13Z")
As others have said, there’s no general principle in the Constitution that specifically prohibits this type of law. There are examples of where legislatures do pass laws that are essentially targeted at a specific group. For example, let’s say a law is enacted requiring all beer bottles to have a five cent deposit. Beer companies could argue that they’re being targeted as a group - companies that use bottles for other products don’t get charged the deposit. ---
**Author:** ![Doug\_K](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b5ac83/32.png) [@Doug\_K](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Doug_K)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2013, 12:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-legal-principle-or-court-ruling-precludes-laws-targeted-at-a-specific-individual-or-group/666816/17 "2013-08-22T12:02:41Z")
At least now we know why she’s really going out with ‘him’ (instead of Joe). ---
**Author:** ![lawbuff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/13edae/32.png) [@lawbuff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lawbuff)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2013, 3:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-legal-principle-or-court-ruling-precludes-laws-targeted-at-a-specific-individual-or-group/666816/18 "2013-08-22T15:04:29Z")
> [@dstarfire](#): > > So, what legal principle, court ruling, or law prevents legislation targeted at a specific entity? > > In a recent thread one flaw with a posted theory/idea was that it involved a law targeted at specific individual or small group (and not a member of an explicitly protected group like race or religion). Such passage would be declared UNconstitutional, period, but say a person were arrested under it, that would be in the Prosecutorial sense, “Selective Prosecution/Enforcement”, based on a “Selective Enactment”. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2013, 3:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-legal-principle-or-court-ruling-precludes-laws-targeted-at-a-specific-individual-or-group/666816/19 "2013-08-22T15:06:41Z")
> [@lawbuff](#): > > Such passage would be declared UNconstitutional, period, You’ve just contradicted what everyone else in this thread has said. Do you have anything to back this up? ---
**Author:** ![lawbuff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/13edae/32.png) [@lawbuff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lawbuff)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2013, 3:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-legal-principle-or-court-ruling-precludes-laws-targeted-at-a-specific-individual-or-group/666816/20 "2013-08-22T15:11:22Z")
> [@lawbuff](#): > > Such passage would be declared UNconstitutional, period, > [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > You’ve just contradicted what everyone else in this thread has said. Do you have anything to back this up? How did I contradict it?? Bill of Attainder’s are UNconstitutional. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-legal-principle-or-court-ruling-precludes-laws-targeted-at-a-specific-individual-or-group/666816.md?page=2)