Case: Labrayere v. Bohr Farms, LLC (Sup. Ct., MO, 2015) The Missouri legislature passed a law in 2011 (often called "right to farm") that blocks most suits against animal feeding operations, so they are not subject to common law nuisance actions. Neighbors of a large pig feeding operation run by Bohr Farms sued, contending that the statute was unconstitutional for in violation of their equal protection and due process rights. Lower courts disagreed. They appealed to the state's highest level appellate court.

Decision: Affirmed. The statute in question is not due strict scrutiny for equal protection violation. That occurs when there is discrimination based on membership in a suspect class. Plaintiffs claims that they suffer discrimination as rural citizens does not fly; other rural citizens benefit from the rule. Hence the statute is subject only to "rational basis review" which means the court must find some rational basis for the legislature to pass a law. That usually exists, as it does in this case, as the legislature wanted to help large animal feed operations. Similarly, there is no due process violation.

Based on the case and the court decision above, answer the following questions:

1. What type of the law is in this case?
2. Does the law discriminate? Does it have any groups/classifications? Are those groups/classifications based on a suspect class?
3. Does the law involve a fundamental law?
4. Which level will be applied?
5. Who would want passage of a statute that prohibits suit against agricultural operations (pig farms) that cause discomfort to neighbors' rural citizens living near pig farms)?Why?
6. Suppose the pig farm has been built next to a low-income community populated mostly by African Americans. Would such neighbors have a better chance at winning an equal protection claim?