Janice owns a hardware store on Main Street in Morehed. Her shop had been in business for three generations and was a staple among the businesses downtown. One day, Janice received a notice in the mail from the mayor's office announcing a city council town hall meeting to discuss a proposed downtown beautification initiative (which Morehead sorely needs), and the proposal included an architect's drawing of what downtown would look like were the initiative to go forward. Janice was shocked to note the city's plans to reroute Main Street in such a way that her business would be forced to shut down or relocate.

Janice marked her calendar and prepared herself to argue at the town hall meeting but when she got there, on the appointed date and time, the meeting had been cancelled. Janice later found out the city counsel had voted to approve the initiative anyway.

Question: When the counsel voted to approve the initiates despite not holding the town hall meeting, what rights of Janices' did they violate?

Let's change the facts a bit.

While Janice's hardware store had been around for generations, Kevin's hardware store--located just across the street--was a relative upstart. Janice arrived at the town hall meeting, which proceeded as planned, and argued against the proposed initiative on grounds that it would destroy her business. Janice also brought her own architect's drawing showing that the city could achieve the same benefits by rerouting Main Street in such a way that Kevin's business would be affected instead of hers. The council voted to approve the initiative despite her pleas. When the meeting was over, Janice overheard one of the council members telling Kevin, "A woman has no business in the hardware business anyway." The bulldozers arrived the next day to start tearing up Main Street. Seeing this, Janice rushed down to the courthouse to file an injunction to stop the work. She sued on gender discrimination grounds, citing the council member's comment she overheard.

Question: What scrutiny level will the court apply in deciding whether to grant the injunction Janice is seeking?

Same general facts as above.

After Janice raised the gender issue, the city was able to prove that the council member who'd made the sexist comment had actually voted in favor of Janice's amended plan because, while he was opposed to Janice running her hardware store, he couldn't bear the thought of losing a business that had been part of the fabric of downtown Morehead for so long. The court was persuaded and dismissed Janice's gender claim.

Janice's petition included an allegation that the city was violating her fundamental right to pursue a lawful profession by forcing her to relocate from Main Street. In considering this claim, the court found that the city's plans didn't prevent Janice from exercising her rights: She could run her business; just not on Main Street. To satisfy the "least restrictive means" requirement, the court ordered the city to cover Janice's relocation expenses, then dismissed her fundamental rights claim.

In addition to her fundamental rights and gender claims, Janice also sued on grounds that the city's initiative was simply unnecessary. As proof, she was able to provide the court evidence that sales among downtown businesses had been at an all time high and the city therefore didn't need to fix what wasn't broken.

Question: Janice has lost on her fundamental rights and gender discrimination claims and is down to her last argument. What will the city have to show in order to finally prevail against Janice?