|
In a broad, sweeping decision, the Supreme Court of Alabama unanimously struck down that state's interior design practice
act, holding the law in its entirety unconstitutional and unenforceable.
In so finding, the Court held that the Act "imposes restrictions that are unnecessary and unreasonable upon the
pursuit of useful activities" and that the restrictions "do not bear some substantial relation to the public health, safety, or morals, or to the general welfare, the public convenience, or to
the general prosperity."
In a long and detailed concurring opinion, Justice Parker noted that the Court has continued to recognize the value of economic liberties, including the liberty of
contract and the right to engage in an occupation. "The State's argument that certification of interior designers is necessary to ensure that designers are competent to choose safe products for use
in interior design fails for two reasons: (1) federal and state commissions already exist to ensure that unsafe materials are not available for use in homes or businesses; and (2) there is no state
requirement that homeowners or businesses retain any interior decorator or designer to decorate their homes or offices". Justice Parker further stated, "If the public interest is not threatened
by allowing homeowners and businesspersons to design their own houses and offices, it is difficult to understand how that interest is threatened by allowing them to retain interior designers who are not
certified."
He concluded by noting, "Not only are [the appellee designer's] rights to contract and to engage in her chosen occupation at stake in this case, but also the rights of the
people of Alabama to contract with her. If a homeowner or businessperson wants to express himself by decorating his home or his office in a certain way, and if that person believes [appellee designer]
can best provide the design that he desires, the State should not tell that person that he may not contract with [appellee designer] merely because [appellee designer] lacks state certification or an
academic degree. Nor should this Court embrace the paternalistic notion that the average citizen is incapable of choosing a competent interior designer without the State's help."
Comment:
"Over-regulation has always been an opponent of lawmakers. In this instance (as with many others),
when a law/statute opens itself up for revision, it no longer offers immunity from criticisms (implied or real). The law/statute must prove itself once again to be necessary and all of it's proposed
amendments. Alabama has had a practice act in effect for over 20 years, yet has had bad legislation. Possibly Alabama sees this as an opportunity to start anew, without tiered legislation and real
meaning and promise for reciprocity".
- - Carmen Olsson Rigdon, President of CLCID
posted October 26, 2007
|
