The Ninth Circuit holds that it's permissible (at least at this point) for Seattle to raise the minimum wage to $15/hour and to do so for employees of franchisees (e.g., McDonald's) at a somewhat faster clip than at other businesses. Judge Hawkins writes the opinion.
The case involves an appeal of a preliminary injunction, so Judge Hawkins says at the outset of his opinion: "While we express no view as to the ultimate merits, we affirm
because IFA did not, at this stage in the proceeding, show it
is likely to succeed on the merits or that a preliminary
injunction is in the public interest." But after explaining for 36 pages why IFA's factual and legal contentions were meritless, at the end of the opinion -- which applied the "serious questions" test to provisional relief requests -- Judge Hawkins also says: "Though the district court failed to include
all Winter factors, [Cite] it ultimately
reached the proper conclusion because IFA did not raise
serious questions going to the merits on any of its claims, nor
did it show that an injunction is in the public interest."
Given the preceding 36 pages, and the fact that the panel holds that "IFA did not raise serious questions going to the merits on any of its claims," I think that's a pretty clear "view as to the ultimate merits."
