Most of us might not directly feel the impact of a recent court decision that favored three business owners in Jacksonville. However, this ruling holds significant implications for those who advocate for economic liberty. The case of Proctor v. City of Jacksonville brought to light various issues related to food truck regulations and the rights of business owners.

Unraveling the Impact of a Court Ruling on Economic Liberty

Background and the Ruling

On December 3rd, a unanimous three-judge state Court of Appeals panel ruled in favor of the plaintiffs in Proctor v. City of Jacksonville. The panel overturned a trial judge's decision to dismiss the entire case, allowing the plaintiffs to continue challenging the city's food truck rules. Nicole Gonzalez, who owns business property in Jacksonville, wanted to host food trucks owned by Anthony Proctor and Octavius Raymond. But Jacksonville's food truck rules were preventing these voluntary transactions. Judge Jefferson Griffin wrote that the trial court erred by applying the wrong legal test and that the plaintiffs' complaint adequately alleged facts to survive dismissal.

The three plaintiffs had been working with the Institute for Justice and filed suit in December 2022 against multiple aspects of Jacksonville's food truck rules. They alleged that location restrictions prevented food truck operators from conducting business in approximately ninety-six percent of Jacksonville's property, severely infringing on their rights to engage in safe and lawful occupations. Along with location restrictions, the suit also challenged limits on food truck signs, arguing that these sign restrictions violated free-speech rights.

The lawsuit emphasized that Jacksonville's unified development ordinance treated food truck owners differently from competitors. It pointed out that while a specialty-eating establishment like a bakery or coffee shop could open next to a restaurant or residential property, a food truck offering the same products could not. The Appeals Court allowed plaintiffs to pursue claims that Jacksonville's rules violated rights guaranteed by the state constitution's "fruits of their own labor" and "law of the land" clauses, which protect citizens' constitutional right to earn a living from arbitrary regulations.

The Role of the Institute for Justice

The Institute for Justice played a crucial role in this case. It was stated that an earlier draft of Jacksonville's food truck rules would have allowed entrepreneurs to operate within a larger area of Jacksonville. But due to pressure from restaurant owners, the UDO was redrafted to insulate them from competition. Under the final rules, food trucks were blocked from operating within 250 feet of a property with a restaurant, another food truck, or residential property.

The lawsuit also claimed that the fees for food trucks were not based on the "actual or reasonably anticipated costs" of enforcing the regulations. The trial court was held to have erred by applying an erroneous blanket-test to the plaintiffs' claims, despite the UDO enjoying a presumption of validity.

Gonzalez, Proctor, and Raymond still have to prove that Jacksonville's rules violated their free speech, equal treatment, and economic liberty rights. But the state Appeals Court's decision signals that Jacksonville has a substantial obligation to justify its food truck restrictions. Other North Carolina cities considering similar limits on their residents' right to earn a living should take note of this ruling.