|
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
|
