discriminate on the basis of race or ethnicity, Plaintiffs’ claim fails. 11 . The Court notes again that the challenged ordinances have presumably been enforced since November 2007 and that Plaintiffs have offered no evidence that the City has engaged in any discriminatory enforcement against Hispanic operators or workers. Similarly, Plaintiffs have adduced no evidence that predecessor ordinances to those challenged here — in effect since 2000 — have ever been disparately enforced against Hispanics. 12 . Nov. Transcript [Doc. # 44], at 108. 13 . Plaintiffs' Response [Doc. # 47], ¶ 8. 14 . It must be noted that should the City choose to eliminate MFUs from the City altogether, it is entitled to do so. See New Orleans v. Dukes, 427 U.S. 297, 304-05, 96 S.Ct. 2513, 49 L.Ed.2d 511 (1976) (<HOLDING>). 15 . Plaintiffs have offered virtually no
holding that a jurys finding that a city had delegated its final policymaking authority in the area of law enforcement to a city police chief was supported by the evidence and warranted imposing liability upon the city holding that a city could conclude that mobile vendors have a deleterious effect on the economy of the city and could accordingly substantially curtail their operation if not totally ban them holding that city attorneys promise in an oral settlement agreement for city to annex and rezone land was within the legal authority of the city of joliet to accomplish and were not absolutely void acts per se therefore city could be estopped from avoiding enforcement of contract recognizing the holding in webb and stating operation of the plant for the city by a separate agency does not relieve the city from liability holding city could not enforce through administrative adjudication a city ordinance limiting vehicle weight