IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
                                 DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS AND ST. JOHN


GOVERNMENT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS                                )       CASE NO.   ST-2026-MC-00008
DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND                                     )
CONSUMER AFAIRS                                                 )
                                                                )
                                        Plaintiff,              )
                                                                )
                                 vs                             )
                                                                )
ELGADI ENTERPRISES, LLC d/b/a                                   )
ALI BABA GAS STATION & GROCERY                                  )
                                                                )
                                        Defendant               )

                                               Cite as 

                                      MEMORANDUM         OPINION AND ORDER

qi              Pending before this Court are

           1.   Plaintiff Government of the Virgin Islands Department of Licensing and Consumer
                Affairs’   Petition For Enforcement Of Administrative Subpoena (“Petition”),   filed January
                16, 2026
          2.    Defendant Elgadi Enterprises, LLC’s Motion To Determine [2A V.I.C. § 155a
                Unconstitutional (“Motion”),     filed February 24, 2026; and
          3.    Plaintiff's Reply To Opposition To Petition For Enforcement (“Reply”), filed March 11,
                2026

q2      For the reasons set forth below, Elgadi Enterprises, LLC’s Motion to Determine 12A
V.I.C. § 155a Unconstitutional will be denied, the Government’s Petition will be granted and
Elgadi Enterprises, LLC will be ordered to produce the information requested by the subpoena

     I.         FACTS AND PROCEDURAL                 HISTORY

q3              On or about June 9, 2025, Plaintiff Government of the Virgin Islands Department of
Licensing and Consumer Affairs (“DLCA”                 or the “Department”) served an administrative
subpoena on Elgadi Enterprises, LLC (“Elgad?’”) seeking the following

          e     Retail Sales Records;
          e     Wholesale Purchase Records
          e     Transportation and Delivery Costs;
          e     Operating Costs and Overhead;
Gov't of the V.I. DLCA v. Elgadi Enterprises,   LLC                                   

Case No. ST-2026-MC-00008
Memorandum            Opinion and Order
Page 2 of 12


        e   Pricing Methodologies;
        e   Excise tax filings or reports submitted to the V.I. Bureau of Internal Revenue that reflect
            gross revenues and net fuel related income; and
        e   Compliance and Regulatory Filings

q4       The DLCA is the executive agency responsible for enforcing consumer protection laws in
the Virgin Islands. Elgadi is business entity operating a gas station under the name of Ali Baba
Gas Station and Grocery. This matter came before the Court for a status conference hearing on
March 16, 2026.' During the hearing, the Court heard sworn testimony from Horace Graham Jr
Assistant Commissioner for the Department of Licensing and Consumer Affairs. Assistant
Commissioner Graham testified that the DLCA is conducting the second phase cost-of-living
analysis in the termtory after recciving a grant award from the Office of Management and Budget
As such, the DLCA must provide datato an external analysis company conducting the preliminary
study needed to complete the project. After phase one of the study, the analysis group subsequently
identified fuel costs as an imperative consideration of the cost of living in the Territory. The DLCA
then subpoenaed approximately 60 gas stations, including Elgadi, to provide information about
what their pricing methods entail generally

q5      The subpoena issued to Elgadi requested that it produce all responsive records on or before
July 30, 2025. Elgadi objected to the subpoena, leading the DLCA to file its Petition For
Enforcement Of Administrative Subpoena. Elgadi now moves this Court for an order declaring the
Department’s authority to set prices for petroleum products and conduct investigations in pursuit
thereof unconstitutional

  Il.       ARGUMENTS

q6       The DLCA argues its subpoena was “lawfully issued pursuant to the express statutory
authority granted by the Legislature in 3 V.I.C. § 272(c)(1).”* The Department contends the
subpoena seeks information directly relevant to its ongoing investigation for the purposes of
determining prices and quantities as permitted by 12A V.I.C. § 155a and 3 V.I.C. § 272(c)(2).3
Elgadi argues 12A V.I.C. § 155a is not narrowly tailored to prevent the deprivation of life, liberty,
or property under the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Revised Organic Act of
1954.4 Specifically, Elgadi contends that § 155a “permits the arbitrary, disparate treatment of
merchants,” is only applicable during times of disaster, encroaches on his liberty rights to a “free
market,” and “restricts economic activity.”*

q7     The DLCA replies that a statute authorizing price controls does not impinge on
fundamental rights and is thus only subject to rational basis review.° The Department adds that a

' Attomey Julie A. Beberman appeared on behalfof the Plaintiff, and Attomey CliveC. Rivers appeared on behalfof
the Defendant
  Pl.’s Mot.    418
3 hd
*Defi’s Mot. at 4-5
5 Id. at 8-9, 10-11
* Pl."s Reply To Opp'n To Petition For Enforcement at 3
Gov’t        of the V.I. DLCA   v. Elgadi Enterprises,     LLC                                      2026 VI Super [LU
Case No.        ST-2626-MC-00008
Memorandum            Opinion and Order
Page 3 of 12


price contro] violates substantive due process only if it is “arbitrary, discriminatory, or
demonstrably irrelevant to the policy the legislature is free to adopt.” Finally, the DLCA argues
that Elgadi’s Motion is premature as the Department has not yet set any pricing controls in place.*®

Hi,            LEGAL STANDARD

        A.     The DLCA’s Authority under 3 V.1.C. § 272 and 12A V.LC.                           § 155a


q8      Section 272 of Title {2A of the Virgin Islands Code empowers the DLCA to "carry out
studies and investigations on matters affecting consumers" and “issue subpoenas requiring the
appearance of witnesses and the production of data or information to carry out the purposes of this
chapter."?

q9      The DLCA’s authority extendsto petroleum derivatives under 12A § 155a providing "[t]he
Department of Licensing and Consumer Affairs may determine the prices and quantities at which
all petroleum derivatives, including gasoline, any article of food, and general supplies may be sold
by wholesalers,          retailers, producers, or manufacturers."!" These statutes establish that the DLCA
has both investigative and subpoena authority in addition to price-setting authority over petroleum
products

q10      ~=In the event of non-compliance with a DLCA subpoena under the foregoing provisions,
Title 3 V.I.C. § 272(c)(2) provides “If a subpoena issued by the Department is not duly complied
with, the Department may invoke the aid of any court of the United States Virgin Islands to require
compliance with any such subpoena

        B.     Equal Protection and Due Process

411!     =The Fourteenth Amendment provides “No State shall ... deny to any person within its
jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”!'? The Virgin Islands Bill of Rights contains a parallel
provision guaranteeing “[n]o law shall be enacted in the Virgin Islands which shall ... deny to any
person therein equal protection of the laws.”!?

q12           Congress first guaranteed equal protection in the Virgin Islands through the Organic Act
of 1936.!4          “While the Organic Act of the Virgin Islands which was enacted in 1936 did not extend
the Constitution to the Islands, it docs contain a Bill of Rights which includes a due process and


Tid
Rid
93 VIC. § 272(c)(1)-(2)
IZA VLC. § 155a
3 VLC. § 272(c)(2)
'2 U.S. Const. amend, XIV
'3 Revised Organic Act of 1954, $3
'4 See Organic Act of 1936,       § 34, 

,   1815 (1936) (Repealed by 

 (1982))
Gov’t of the V.I. DLCA v. Elgadi Enterprises,       LLC                                  

Case No. ST-2026-MC-00008
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Page 4 of 12


equal protection clause.”'> Congress has codified its intention to make the federal Constitution,
including its Equal Protection Clause, applicable to the Virgin Islands in a manner consistent with
its applicability to the States. Through enacting the Revised Organic Act of 1954, Congress
extended the Equal Protection Clause directly to the Virgin Islands, declaring that it “shall have
the same force and effect there as in the United States or in any State of the United States                  ...”!°
“Thus, technically, Congress guaranteed equal protection to the Virgin Islands twice:                  expressly
and by extension.”!”

413      The Fifth Amendment provides that no state shall deny any person of “life, liberty, or
property, without due process of law      ~I8 Again, the Virgin Islands Bill of Rights contains a
parallel provision providing that “{n]o law shall be enacted in the Virgin Islands which shall
deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law                . . ”"°

IV.         ANALYSIS

q14      Asa threshold matter, Elgadi here attacks at statute that is not, at least presently, at issue
As the DLCA noted in it’s Reply, the Department has not yet attempted to or actually set in place
any price controls.” Assistant Commissioner Graham, Jr. likewise testified that at the present
summary enforcement proceeding stage, the Department simply seeks to gather information for its
pending study on the cost of living in the Territory. Thus, the subpoena flows from the
Department’s investigatory authority, not its authority to set price controls. Nonetheless, in the
interest of justice the Court will exercise its inherent discretion to address the merits of the
constitutional arguments, notwithstanding their somewhat premature nature

       A.   Enforcement of Administrative Subpoenas

G15         The DLCA is an administrative agency created pursuant to Title 3, Chapter 16 of the Virgin
Islands Code.*! The principal mandate of the DLCA is to “provide and administer consumer
services and programs pursuant to this chapter and the Consumer Protection Law of 1973.””2 An
administrative subpoena must comply with four criteria before it will be enforced.?? The subpoena
must be within the statutory authority of the agency, it must seek relevant information, and it must
not be unduly burdensome.”4 The subpoena also must not be issued for an improper purpose such
as harassment.”°



'S Alton y. Alton, 

 (3d Cir. 1953)
'6 Revised Organic Act of 1954, § 3, 

 (2009)
'7 People v. Simmonds, 

 (V.I. Super Ct. 2012)
‘8 U.S. Const. amend. V.
OVC. Rev. Org. Act of 1954, § 3
20 p].'s Reply To Opp’n To Petition For Enforcement at 3
 '3 VLC.     § 270
223 V.LC. § 271 Powers and duties of Department
3 Territorial Ct. of Virgin Islands v. Richards, 

 (D.V.I. 1987)
4 Id
5 Id
Gov’t of the V.I. DLCA v, Elgadi Enterprises,         LLC                                      

Case No. ST-2026-MC-00008
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Page 5 of 12




       1.   The DLCA Acted Within its Authority

416         When reviewing the DLCA’s authority to subpoena Elgadi, the Court acknowledges “[t}he
general rule applied to statutes granting powers to administrative agencies is that only those powers
are granted which are conferred either expressly or by necessary implication.”2° Though courts
will often enforce a duly issued administrative subpoena, this Court will nonetheless verify it is
within the agency’s authority to issue the subpoena once it is challenged.?’

417      Among other duties and responsibilities, § 271 provides that the DLCA shall “study the
problems of the consumer and determine the best methods of protecting consumer interests.””® The
DLCA may also determine the prices and quantities at which all petroleum derivatives, including
gasoline, any article of food, and general supplies may be sold by wholesalers, retailers, producers,
or manufacturers."” To perform this function, the DLCA is empowered to "carry out studies and
investigations on matters affecting consumers”                and "may issue subpoenas requiring the appearance
of witnesses and the production of data or information to carry out the purposes of this chapter."*°

418     The Court finds that the DLCA is within its statutory authority to issue a subpoena to
Elgadi. Though § 272 does not provide additional measures for how the DLCA should proceed
with service of a subpoena, it does provide that when a department-issued subpoena is not
complied with, the Department may invoke the aid of Virgin Islands courts to require
compliance,””?!

419     Assistant Commissioner Graham testified that the DLCA is conducting a cost-of-living
analysis in the Territory and must therefore provide data to an external analysis company
conducting the preliminary study needed for the project. Because the analysis group identified fuel
costs as an imperative consideration in the cost of living, the DLCA subpoenaed approximately 60
gas stations, including Elgadi, to provide information about what their pricing methods entail
generally. Thus, the subpoena at issue flows directly from the DLCA’s valid exercise of its power
to "carry out studies and investigations on matters affecting consumers . . . ."??

      2.    The Subpoena Seeks Relevant Information and is Not Burdensome or Issued for
            Improper Purposes

420         Where statutory authority exists, “the information sought is relevant and not burdensome,
and if the challenging party has not put the good faith of the agency squarely in issue, a district

 © Gov't Emps.   Ret. Sys.,   Bd.   of Trs. v. Gov't
                                                  of Virgin Islands Off. of Att'y Gen., 

,   at *5 (VI
Super., 2016)
Id
8 3 VLC. § 272(a\(1)
  12A VLC, § 155a
33 VIC. § 272(c)(1)
3 VIC. § 272(c)(2)
23 VLC. § 272(c)(1)
Gov't of the V.I. DLCA v. Elgadi Enterprises,                   LLC                                        

Case No. ST-2026-MC-00008
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Page 6 of 12


Court is to act summarily.?3 Here, Elgadi’s Motion does not challenge the relevancy and scope of
the subpoena, nor does it contest the agency's good faith.*4 Rather, Elgadi mounts a constitutional
and statutory challenge to the Department’s authority, alleging the entire statutory scheme
allowing the DLCA to set prices and conduct investigations in pursuit thereof is unconstitutional
Thus, finding the subpoena was properly issued and legally sufficient, the Court will next analyze
whether Elgadi’s constitutional claims bar enforcement of the subpoena

      B.    Balboni Establishes the Controlling Standard for Evaluating Equal Protection
            Claims in the Virgin Islands

q21         ‘First, the Court notes that Elgadi brings a facial challenge to the constitutionality of § 155a
based on provisions of the Virgin Islands Revised Organic Act.?5 A challenger making a facial
challenge bears the burden of proving the statute could never be constitutionally applied.?® As
explained infra, Elgadi has not shown that section § 155a is unconstitutional on its face

422         Duly enacted legislation enjoys a “presumption of constitutionality”                          in the Virgin Islands.3”
Furthermore, “The people of the Virgin Islands speak through the voice of its Legislature,” and
thus the judiciary does not sit to second-guess the Legislature’s judgment.*® The Court next turns
to the appropriate standard of judicial scrutiny when a litigant challenges the constitutionality of a
statute


423     When evaluating whethera statute violates the Due Process or Equal Protection Clauses of
the Constitution, the Supreme Court of the United States employs a tiered framework of scrutiny?
If the statute burdens a fundamental right or discriminates between classes of people based on
membership in a protected class including race, national origin, or alienage, the Court applies strict
scrutiny to evaluate the statute’s constitutionality.4° Strict scrutiny is the most demanding standard
under which a law will be upheld only if it is “narrowly tailored to further compelling
governmental interests.”4! Ifa legislative act discriminates on the basis of membership in a quasi


33 Richards, 

34 Though Elgadi does not challenge the relevancy and scope of the subpoena in its Moton, during cross -cxamination
of Assistant Commissioner Graham, counsel for Elgadi questioned if the DLCA chose to subpoena fuel merchants
for reasons such membership in certain racial or ethnic groups. Defense counsel also inquired as to why other types
of retailors, such as grocers, were not subpoenaed and why tax information was requested. Considering defense
counsel’s Motion and cross-examination questions together, it is unclear whether Elgadi’s attacks the issuance of the
subpoena itselfor the underlying statute granting the DLCA authority to investigate and issue subpoenas
35 See People of the VI. v. Rosario, 62 V.1. 429, 434 (V.1. Super. Ct. 2015) (quoting United States v. Marcavage, 

 (3d Cir. 2010))          (‘A facial challenge    ‘tests a law's constitutionality based on its text alone and does not
consider
       the facts or circumstances ofa particular case.””)
*6 United States vy. Salerno, 

 (1987) (“A facial challenge to a legislative Act is, of course, the most
difficult challenge to mount successfully, since the challenger must establish that no set of circumstances exists
under which the Act would be valid.)
37 Kell v. Davies, 

, at *5 (V.L. Super., 2015)
38 Azille v. People,     

 (V.1..   2012)
* See Clark v. Jeter, 486 US. 456 (1988)
4 Plyler v. Doe,       457 US.    202,   216-18 (1982)
4" Grutter v. Bollinger,        

 (2003)
 Gov't of the V.I. DLCA v. Elgadi Enterprises,              LLC                                  2026 VI Super ILL
 Case No. ST-2026-MC-00008
     Memorandum          Opinion and Order
     Page 7 of 12


 suspect class such gender, intermediate scrutiny applies.7? Laws must be substantially related to
 an important governmental interest to withstand intermediate scrutiny.4? Statutes that do not
 burden a fundamental right or do not classify people based on suspect traits are subject to the least
 demanding level of scrutiny, rational basis review.*+ Thus, statutes evaluated under rational basis
 review are generally upheld and must only be rationally related to a legitimate state interest.45

 424      The Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands has adopted a similar framework for interpreting
 the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses of the Revised Organic Act.*° In deciding Balboni
 the Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands decided against the wholesale adoption of the Supreme
 Court of the United States’ tiered framework of judicial scrutiny.*’ The court found that the lowest
 tier of scrutiny, rational basis review, had been widely criticized as a “virtual rubber-stamp of truly
 minimal review.”48 Thus, rather than adopting the Supreme Court of the United States’ form of
 rational basis review, the court looked to the scrutiny approaches used by state courts of last resort
 across the United States and found that many employcd a heightened level of review.4? The court
then adopted heightened rational basis review, also referred to as “rational basis with bite,” as the
appropriate standard for evaluating equal protection claims under the Revised Organic Act.*”
Heightened rational basis review requires “a court to analyze the actual justification for the statute,
rather than engage in speculation by considering any and all possible reasons for its enactment.”
Under Balboni, a statute must rest on clear legislative findings and at least a “modicum of
evidence” that the means employed further the ends to survive heightened rational basis review.>°
The court did not reach the Balboni litigant’s due process claim

         C.    Elgadi’s Equal Protection Claim Fails

425      Elgadi maintains that § 155a violates the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantees of equal
protection, as applied to the Virgin Islands by the Revised Organic Act.>? He argues the statute
does so by permitting disparate treatment of fuel merchants.°4 Elgadi’s argument is unavailing

{26    The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Section 3 of the Revised
Organic Act of 1954 prohibit the Territory from denying equal protection of the law to any



4°     Miss.   Univ,   for Women v. Hogan,
                                        

 (1982)
Wid
“MECC.          v. Beach Comme'ns,   

 (1993)
48 Belle Terre v. Boraas,

 (1974)
46 See Balboni v. Ranger Am. of the          V1, inc.,   2019 VI70
7 1d. 446
48 Jd, 44        (quoting LAURENCE      H. TRIBE,        AMERICAN    CONSTITIONAL   LAW §   16 32, at 1610 (2d ed.   1988))
49 fd © 44-47
50 1d. 4.46
5! id. 944
1.449
53 Def.'s Mot. at          7-8
 4d. Wis unclear from the oral arguments held on March 16, 2026, if Elgadi argues that the statute has a disparate
effect on fuel merchants belonging to certain protected classes, or fuel merchants as opposcd to other kinds of
retailers, generally.
Gov't   of the V.I. DLCA   v. Elgadi Enterprises,   LLC                                         2026 VI Super [1U
Case No. ST-2026-MC-00008
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Page 8 of 12


person.*> Equal Protection Clause claims entail a “basic requirement”   “that there be governmental
action creating a classification that burdens one class and benefits another.”*° Only after a
classification is established do Virgin Islands courts employ a tiered-scrutiny framework in
evaluating whether a legislative act violates equal protection.5’ Government action cannot violate
the Equal Protection Clause without first creating a classification among, or discriminating
between, those claiming to be affected by a statute.°* The Court must therefore make a threshold
determination whether § 155a makes any classification

q27       The Court finds that Elgadi has not made out a valid equal protection claim regarding his
assertions of disparate treatment of merchants. Through § 155a, the DLCA is simply afforded
quantity and price determination powers for “petroleum derivatives” sold by “wholesalers,
retailers, producers, or manufacturers.”°? The statute’s language doesnot single out fuel providers
and uniformly applies the same regulatory authority across all covered retailors selling the category
of goods considered “petroleum derivatives,” including gasoline, food, and general supplies
without distinction. By subjecting all merchants in the covered category to the same potential price
and quantity determinations by the DLCA, the statute treats them identically. Accordingly,
Elgadi’s argument does not satisfy the threshold requirement that government action create a
classification burdening one class and benefiting another.

428     When cross-examining Assistant Commissioner Graham, counsel for Elgadi asked if the
DLCA chose to subpoena fuel merchants for reasons such membership in certain racial or ethnic
groups.®® Defense counsel also inquired as to why other types of retailors, such as grocers, were
not subpoenaed.®! Principally, this line inquiry confuses the DLCA’s   investigative authority that
it presently exercises under 3 V.I.C.         § 272(c)(1) with its enforcement authority under 12A V.I.C
§ 155a. Further, the DLCA’s decision to subpoena fuel merchants as opposed to other
“wholesalers, retailers, producers, or manufacturers” of petroleum or non-petroleum products for
its cost-of-living analysis does not amount to a “classification” implicating equal protection
concerns

q29     Elgadi’s argument that equal protection principles provide that 12A V.I.C.§ 155a is only
applicable during times of disaster is equally unconvincing. Though the DLCA’s       price control
authority may be operationalized through emergency regulations in 11 VI ADC 1015-1,°? § 155a’s
language granting the general authority to determine prices and quantities contains no emergency
requirement or limitation. Instead, § 155a provides broad, ongoing authority to set prices for


55 U.S, Const. amend. V, XIV; Revised Organic Act of 1954, § 3
56 Gen Offshore Corp. v. Farrelly, 

 (D.V.I.    1990)
57 Balboni,   944-47
5® Sturm v. Clark, 

 (3d Cir. 1987) (“Government action cannot violate the equal protection
clause if it does not create classifications among, or discriminate between, those affected.)
SI2A VIC. § 155a
“ March 16, 2026, Status Conference
61 id,
2 See 11 Virgin Islands Administrative Code 1015-1, Ll V.LR. & Regs. § 1015-1 (designating “all motor fuels
petroleum products and oils" as articles of pnmary need and authorizing the Commissioner of the Department of
Licensing and Consumer Affairs to freeze prices for these articles during emergency situations.)
Gov’t        of the V.I. DLCA vy. Elgadi Enterprises,   LLC                                  

]U
Case No. ST-2026-MC-00008
Memeorandum           Opinion and Order
Page 9 of 12


petroleum products, requiring only that the Department allows “a reasonable margin of profit" and
sets "a wholesale price and a retail price" for each item.®? Emergency-related provisions contained
in 1 VI ADC 1015-1 are separate regulatory measures authorizing price freezes during times of
emergency; but they do not, by extension, restrict the Department's explicit statutory authority
under § 155a. The Court holds that 12A V.I.C.§ 155a does not violate the Equal Protection Clause
of the Revised Organic Act

        D.     Elgadi’s Due Process Claim Fails

q30     The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Section 3 of the Revised
Organic Act of 1954 ensure due process is afforded to those in the Territory.°* While due process
entails both procedural and substantive components, the Court’s inquiry will address Elgadi’s
substantive due process claim under § 155a.®5

q31      Substantive due process “provides heightened protection against government interference
with certain fundamental rights and liberty interests.”° Courts ask whether the government has
infringed upon a protected liberty when evaluating a substantive due process claim.®? Much like
an equal protection analysis, courts apply strict scrutiny if a fundamental right is at stake and
rational basis review if no fundamental right is at stake.°® As previously noted, the Supreme Court
of the Virgin Islands did not decide in Balboni whether heightened rational basis review applies to
due process claims under the Revised Organic Act. However, “this Court has not found support
for applying heightened rational basis review to equal protection claims and traditional rational
basis review to substantive due process claims          69 “The reasoning in Balboni, combined with
the approaches taken by the fedcral courts and forty-six states, convinces this Court that analogous
standards should apply across the lowest tier of equal protection and due process claims.” ’°

432      Elgadi alleges that § 155a violates substantive due process and is therefore subject to strict
scrutiny because it infringes on his fundamental rights to property and liberty.’! He asserts that §
15Sa encroaches on his liberty rights to a “free market” and “restricts economic activity” because
economic liberty includes “the freedomto contract, work, and [sic] engage in a free market without
unreasonable government                interference.””?       The DLCA   replies that a statute authorizing price
controls does not impinge on fundamental rights and is thus only subject to rational basis review.”*
The Department adds that a price control violates substantive due process only if it is “arbitrary

® IZA VLC. § 155a
6+ U.S. Const. amend. V; Revised Organic Act of 1954, § 3
65 Def.’s Mot. at 9-11
66 Hashington v. Glucksberg, 

 (1997)
67 fd. at72t
8 Gumbs, J 20
6° Guabs, 421
” Gumbs, 42.1. (explaining that “[FJorty-six of the fifty states and the federal courts apply the same standard for due
process claims not implicating fundamental rights as they do for equal protection claims not based on suspect
classifications.”)
7 Def.'s Mot. at    4-5
™ Id. at 8-9, 10-11
73 PL.’s Reply To Opp‘n To Petition For Enforcement at 3
Gov't of the V.I. DLCA v. Elgadi Enterprises,            LLC                           

Case No. ST-2026-MC-00008
Memorandum          Opinion and Order
Page 10 of 12


discriminatory, or demonstrably irrelevant to the policy the legislature is free to adopt.”?* Finally
the DLCA argucs that Elgadi’s Motion is premature as the Department has not yet set any pricing
controls in place.7> The Court agrees

433       The Virgin Islands, as an unincorporated territory to the United States, is subject to the
  Territorial Incorporation” doctrine.”° The Territorial Incorporation doctrine classifies certain
rights provided within U.S. Constitution as “fundamental” because they are “inherent principles
which are the basis of all free government, which cannot be with impunity transcended.”?’
“Therefore, if a right is considered ‘fundamental,’ Congress is prohibited from interfering with it
even in the unincorporated territories.”’® Rights not considered fundamental are instead classified
as “remedial,” because they are considered “peculiar to our system or jurisprudence,” as opposed
to essential constitutional principtes.’? Thus, Congress is not required to sccure “remedial” rights
for U.S. citizens and those living in an unincorporated territory.*° “In fact, even if Congress grants
a remedial right by statute, it has the power to repeal the legislation at any time.”?!

434      The Supreme Court defines fundamental rights as essential to the concept of the ordered
liberty.8* Our understanding of fundamental rights has changed over the course of the country’s
history. Therefore, while certain property rights and freedom of contract were considered
fundamental at carly times in the nation’s history, “these property rights lost their primacy.”8? In
the twentieth century, personal liberties are considered fundamental.*4

q35     Supreme Court precedent addressing the meaning of “fundamental rights” makes clear that
Elgadi’s claims do not satisfy the criteria. Even if this were not so, Elgadi has not demonstrated
how § 155a, granting the DLCA with price setting authority, has or will restrict his access toa free
market, contracting ability, or economic activity. Elgadi’s claims are speculative, as a mere
expectation of future economic activity is insufficient to warrant substantive due process concerns
Because § 155a does not abrogate any fundamental rights, life, liberty, or property interest,
Elgadi’s claim is subject to heightened rational basis review

436      Heightened rational basis review requires that the Court analyze the Legislature’s actual
reasoning for passing § 155a.8° Routine research methods have yielded limited results concerning
the original intent behind § 155a. Yet in Bal/boni, the court identified three analytical approaches


14 dd.
3 Id
  6 Virgin Islands v. Clark, 

, at *6-7 (VL Super.,   2010)
 7 

 (citing Dowries v. Bidwell,    

)
 * Ud
de fi
80 Id
8! kd. (citing U.S. CONST.     art. IV, § 3)
82 Palko v. Connecticut,     

 (1937).
83 Clark, at 196 (citing Lee Epstein & Thomas G. Walker, Constitutional Law For A Changing America:   Rights
Liberties and Justice Vol. 2 (Sth ed.2004))
84 fed
85 Balboni, |] 44
Gov't of the V.I. DLCA v. Elgadi Enterprises,         LLC                                          

Case No. ST-2026-MC-00008
Memorandum            Opinion and Order
Page 11 of 12


to heightened rational basis review.** (1) Under the “ends approach” a statute is invalid if it seeks
an impermissible governmental purpose.®? (2) Under the “means” approach a statute is invalid if
it lacks a sufficient connection between the classification and the purpose.** (3) Under the
combination approach, a statute is invalid if it was enacted for an impermissible governmental
purpose and the classification was insufficiently related to other legitimate purposes. *®?

437     Both the ends and combination approaches ask the Court to consider the “actual legislative
purpose” as well as any signs of an improper purpose, such as suspicion of improper influence
backroom dealings, discrimination, or a desire to harm a politically unpopular group.°° The Court
cannot ascertain any signs of improper purpose or motive without the legislative history of § 155a
and therefore focuses on the means approach

438     As the Court explained above, § 155a does not differentiate among merchants or retailers
of petroleum products. As such, where the law creates no distinction, there is no classification for
which its purpose can be matched

439      Moreover, § 155a was adopted as an amendment to the original Consumer Protection Law
of 1973, which serves as the foundational statutory framework for regulating commercial activity
in the Territory. The DLCA serves as the executive agency responsible for administering the
Consumer Protection Law and enforces “all laws in relation to weights and measures and price
controls.”®' Because § 155a’s addition to the Consumer Protection Law of 1973 explicitly extended
its authority to set price controls, and was adopted as an amendment to the original Consumer
Protection Law of [973, it is reasonable to infer the Legislature acted with deliberate intent
regarding its purpose and effect. Accordingly,     “this Court cannot opine that the [statute] was
insufficiently supported when enacted, nor hypothesize an improper motive.”?* Therefore, because
the Court does not find § 155a lacks a sufficient connection between a “classification” and the
purpose under the “means” approach, the statute survives heightened rational basis review

           Based upon the foregoing, it is hereby

     ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Petition                         For Enforcement Of Administrative Subpoena                     is
GRANTED; and it is further

           ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion To Determine 12A V.I.C. § 155(a) Unconstitutional
is DENIED; and it is further



86 Balboni,    J 45
37 Id
aR if
89 Id
% Gumbs, 428
3 VLC.        § 272(a)(13)
2 Gumbs,       | 20; See also FCC.   v. Beach Comnic'ns,    Inc., 

 (*Moreover, because we never require
a legislature to articulate its reasons for enacting a statute, it is entirely irrelevant for constitutional purposes whether
the conceived reason for the challenged distinction actually motivated the legislature.” )
Gov’t of the V.1. DLCA v. Elgadi Enterprises,   LLC                              2026 VI Super |1U
Case No. ST-2026-MC-00008
Memorandum Opinien and Order
Page 12 of 12


         ORDERED that, on or before April 23, 2026, Defendant Elgadi Enterprises, LLC
SHALL comply with Plaintiffs June 9, 2025 subpoena and produce the information requested
therein; and it is further

        ORDERED that a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order shall be directed to
Assistant Attorney General Julie Beberman and Attorney Clive C. Rivers



DATED:     March 23, 2026                       Dees          TY) fiasco
                                                       DENISE    M      ANCOIS
                                            Judge of the Superior Court of the Virgin Islands


ATTEST

TAMARA CHARLES
Clerk of the Court                 i


         DONNA D          NOVAN
a        Court Clerk Supervisor FA          ZF        YAIAL,