scrutiny where there is a “reasonable fit” between regulation and stated goals); Bd. of Trs. of State Univ. of N.Y. v. Fox, 492 U.S. 469, 480, 109 S.Ct. 3028, 106 L.Ed.2d 388 (1989) (“What our decisions require is a ‘fit’ between the legislature’s ends and the means chosen to accomplish those ends — a fit that is not necessarily perfect, but reasonable; that represents not necessarily the single best disposition but one whose scope is in proportion to the interest served, that employs not necessarily the least restrictive means but ... a means narrowly tailored to achieve the desired objective.”) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). And the Court is “loath to second-guess the [City’s] judgment to that effect.” Id. at 478, 109 S.Ct. 3028. (See also PI. Mem. in Supp. at 5 (<HOLDING>).) For these reasons, the Court concludes the
recognizing aljs credibility assessment is entitled to great weight and deference holding that the courts conclusion that transfer was appropriate is to be accorded great deference recognizing that courts normally give great deference to a legislative bodys determination whether or not a legitimate government purpose is served by an ordinance holding that the claim must be based upon the implementation or execution of a policy statement ordinance regulation or decision officially adopted and promulgated by that bodys officers holding that an appellate court must give deference to the trial judges determination of juror competency