The rural town of Dearbourn discourages short term rental of property within town limits. A local ordinance was promulgated that states:

An annual tax payment of $10,000 is required for property owners who allow a non-relative to rent their housing unit for fewer than 60 days during the year. The tax applied only to properties that were acquired within the 36 months before the ordinance became effective, and since.

The purpose of this ordinance is to reimburse the town in part for the additional traffic safety expense short term rentals generate.

Azir and Haami Fadel, a young married couple purchased a condominium in Dearbourn ten months before the ordinance became effective. They usually rent it to visiting family members for a month or two. Otherwise, they use it for long weekend vacations to escape the city. Unaware of the ordinance, they recently rented it to Haami's business partner Ahmed from Jordan during his three weeks visit to the United States. Dearbourn sent them a tax bill for $10,000 under the ordinance.

The Fadels paid the tax bill but contested it vigorously through all administrative processes provided by the town. They filed suit in federal court seeking return of the tax paid based on invalidity of the ordinance on grounds that it violates their rights under the U.S. Constitution to due process and equal protection.

The local paper, Dearbourn Press learned of the lawsuit and assigned a staff reporter to cover the story for publication. The town council, fearing a backlash from its large population of Arab descent seeks a court order to enjoin publication of this article.

The paper responded with affirmative defenses based on its Constitutional rights.

1. Will the Fadels prevail in their lawsuit against the town of Dearbourn? Discuss.

2. What Constitutional right defense/s can Dearbourn press assert and will they succeed? Discuss.