"(While the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals found South Dakota's comparable corporate farm ban also preempted under the dormant commerce clause) I-300 has a chance to prevail because U.S. District Judge Laurie Smith Camp's analysis was "very-poorly reasoned,"Judge Smith-Camp said the law violates the Americans with Disabilities Act: does that mean a farm regardless of the ownership structure is a public entity, a governmental discrimination against the disabled of some public benefit, or an employer?. If the farm is the prospective employer who may not take on a disabled shareholder because of Initiative 300, should the disabled shareholder sue the farm instead?
Good point, if the Court points out that Initiative discriminates against a person with a disability, is that as an employee or as one seeking access to a public accomodation? The court might have sought a 14th amendment basis, say under Cleburn, where courts look at discrimination against the disabled as a constitutional matter with a "rational basis plus" standard of review
"No where does the judge tell us how a Nebraska farm is a public entity," McEowen said.