Plaintiff asserted a claim of breach of due procedure, however it rests on a single ground as their equal security declare that the ordinance has no logical foundation.
Plaintiff just isn’t asserting it was entitled that it was denied any procedural rights to which. Therefore, its due procedure claim falls having its protection that is equal claim. Minnesota v. Clover Leaf Creamery Co., 449 U.S. 456, 470 n. 12, 101 S. Ct. 715, 66 L. Ed. 2d 659 (1981) (“From our conclusion under equal security, nonetheless, it follows a fortiori that the ban on synthetic nonreturnable milk containers doesn’t violate the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause: National Paint, 45 F.3d at 1129 refusing to take into account declare that ordinance violates substantive due procedure liberties; economic regulation should be examined under equal security maxims”); see additionally Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266, 273, 114 S. Ct. 807, 127 L. Ed. 2d 114 (1994) (“Where a particular amendment `provides an explicit textual supply of constitutional security’ against a specific kind of government behavior, ‘ that amendment, perhaps maybe not the greater general idea of substantive due procedure, should be the guide for analyzing these claims.'”)
*806 C. Vagueness
Plaintiff argues that the ordinance doesn’t supply the “person of ordinary cleverness a fair chance to know very well what is forbidden, to ensure he might work consequently.” Grayned v.