In a landmark decision, the United States Supreme Court ruled that a Texas mall, located just north of downtown Houston, must be included in the nation’s list of nation’s largest retailers, as long as it is able to pay its employees at least $15 an hour.
In a case known as the “McMansion case,” which pitted a California mall against the owners of the mall, the justices ruled 5-4 that the Texas mall’s owners, a family-owned company, can keep its profits while also paying its workers at least that amount.
The justices said the McMansion decision was a “victory for workers and for the fair and open marketplace of ideas.”
The McMants, whose company, McMansion Concepts, owns the mall and is considered the world leader in the construction of shopping malls, had sued the city of Houston over an ordinance that limited how much the mall could charge for parking.
The ordinance, which went into effect in 2010, prohibited the Mcmans from charging more than the $15 hourly minimum wage for all employees, including janitors and security guards.
The city of San Antonio sued the Mcmansion owners in federal court, arguing that the ordinance was an unconstitutional attempt to limit the city’s ability to regulate the business of the Mcdonalds.
The court agreed, ruling that San Antonio was free to impose the minimum wage and that the McMechans were not entitled to be exempted from the law because of the business’ size.
The case had been before the Supreme Court for more than a year.
The McMans sued for a preliminary injunction, which is used to temporarily block an employer from enforcing a law, and the justices agreed to hear the case.
In their decision, which was written by Justice Samuel Alito, the court’s conservatives and liberal justices said that the law was intended to restrict access to jobs and to discourage competition.
The case, they said, was not about the McManneys’ private business interests.
The court’s liberal justices also disagreed with the city, arguing in a brief filed with the justices that the city had “no legitimate reason to impose a minimum wage law.”
The ruling could have far-reaching implications for retail companies in states across the country, as some argue that the minimum-wage law would prevent employers from hiring employees, limiting their ability to expand their businesses and reduce the wages of their workers.
The McManans have argued that the state’s minimum-wage law is designed to prevent them from operating.
In January, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which handles appeals from the federal government, agreed with the McMenans.