Asian American Research Journal

This paper explores whether an equal protection challenge to Los Angeles’ motion banninggas stoves in all new residential and commercial buildings is legally viable. Although themotion makes no specific mention of race (making it facially-neutral), Asian Americans haveraised concerns about the potential disproportionate impacts on their communities, due to thecultural significance of gas stoves in Asian cuisine. Stimulating the two-step process forevaluating whether unconstitutional discrimination has occurred from a facially neutral law, Idemonstrate that such litigation would not be legally viable at this time for three reasons.First, the unique circumstances surrounding the affected population make establishingdisparate impact, the first element, much more challenging than similarly situated cases.Second, political processes protecting the pseudo-right of government employees todiscriminate increase the burden of the challenger to prove discriminatory intent, the secondelement. Third, the Los Angeles’ motion would likely survive the “narrowly tailored andcompelling interest” requirement of strict scrutiny review—the final step in an equalprotection challenge. The courts’ rigorous standards for proving unseen forms ofdiscrimination reflect a failure to recognize legacies of systemic inequities appearing underthe guise of neutrality. This is certainly the case for Asian Americans, whose longtimereliance on gas stoves is influenced by Western colonization, exploitation, and theindustrialization of their home nations. Any environmental legislation—howeverwell-meaning—must consider the economic realities of climate policy on the livelihoods ofAsian Americans, which are inextricably intertwined with the climate crisis. In this regard,legislatures can play a powerful role in balancing the state’s decarbonization goals whilesafeguarding marginalized communities from policy’s unintended consequences.