My overall advice to Mr. Smith would be that he has a weak case, at best. Question Two:

To evaluate whether Susie has a valid equal protection claim, one must start by determining whether the city ordinance is a state action. As a city is a branch of the state, the smoking ordinance would be considered a state action. The next step is to determine whether she belongs to a suspect class or whether a fundamental right is being violated. Although being a woman places her in a quasi-suspect class, this ordinance does not involve a distinction between the genders. Instead the issue is between smokers and non-smokers and as such, there is no suspect class involved. Furthermore, there is no fundamental right involved as neither the right to smoke or to open a business is considered a fundamental right. (Chemerinsky, 2002; p. 157).

Under these facts, the court will evaluate Susie's claim using a rational basis test. According to this test, the court will determine whether the ordinance is rationally related to a legitimate government purpose. The burden will be on Susie to show that the ordinance is not rationally related to...

(Barron, 2005; p. 20).
Although promoting and ensuring the health and well-being of its citizens is a legitimate government purpose, Susie could make an argument that the ordinance, as written, is not rationally related to this purpose. If the purpose is to protect non-smokers from second hand smoke, then not allowing Susie to open a cigar bar that would cater to only people interested in smoking and would maintain the smoke inside her bar, in no way would effect non-smokers. For this reason, Susie could make a reasonable argument that the ordinance, as applied to her situation, is not rationally related to a legitimate government purpose and thus violates the protections granted by the equal protection clause.

Bibliography

Barron, Jerome. (2005): Black Letter Outline on Constitutional Law. West Publishing.

Chemerinsky, Erwin. (2002): Constitutional Law: Principles and Policies. Fredericksburg: Aspen.

Graham, Francis. (2003): Equal Protection: Rights and Liberties Under the Law. New York: ABC-CLIO Inc.

Korematsu v. U.S., 584 F.Supp. 1406…