State of Ga. v. Heretic Inc.

This case involves a challenge to the constitutionality of Georgia’s statutes providing certain exceptions to the general ban on Sunday alcohol sales. The State of Georgia and the City of Atlanta appeal the trial court’s ruling that these statutes violate equal protection. Because these statutes do not violate the equal protection guarantees of the United States or Georgia Constitutions, we reverse. The Heretic, Inc. operates a bar in Atlanta that is not permitted to sell alcohol on Sundays. The challenged statutory scheme is as follows: OCGA § 3-3-20 a provides a general ban on Sunday alcohol sales by the drink. OCGA § 3-3-7 gives local governments the option of excepting certain businesses and venues from this ban, including public stadiums, coliseums, large auditoriums, and “eating establishments.” Pursuant to OCGA § 3-3-7 c 2, the City of Atlanta authorizes the Sunday sale of alcohol at an “eating establishment,” which is defined as an establishment that derives at least 50 of its gross annual food and beverage sales from the sale of prepared meals of food. Heretic concedes that it does not meet the statutory definition of an eating establishment. Following a non-evidentiary hearing, the trial court granted Heretic’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and issued an injunction barring enforcement of the challenged statutes against Heretic.

1. Heretic argues that the statutory scheme denies it the equal protection of the laws because bars may not sell alcohol on Sundays but businesses defined as “eating establishments” may even if they do not serve food on Sundays. Because bar owners are not members of a suspect class, and because the right to sell alcoholic beverages is not a fundamental right, the challenged statutes are properly analyzed under the rational basis test.1 Under this test, the statutes will be upheld if any state of facts can reasonably be conceived to support the legislature’s exception of the listed businesses, but not bars, from the general ban.2 Heretic, as the party challenging the classification, has the responsibility of convincing the court that the classification has no rational basis.3