For more than 80 years, the federal courts for claims that have been rooted in “economic freedom” – the idea that the clause on the proper procedural clause of the 14th amendment limits the government's authority in order to conclude the employment or ability of a person to conclude contracts. In the past month, however, the increased protection for economic freedom unanimously unanimously unanimously unanimously unanimously unanimously unanimously and a professional license law under the clause on the proper procedure of the state. The court said that the Georgians – in this case lactation consultant – have the right to “pursue a legitimate occupation of their decision that comes freely from inappropriate state interference”.
In 2016, Georgia issued a law according to which the lactation consultant – offering breaches and services for compensation, require state license. The consultants had to pass a written exam (cost around $ 650), completed 14 courses in health sciences, including 8 courses at university level, and conduct 300 supervised clinical hours. While less stressful and costly lactation accreditation and training regimes are common in Georgia, they could not be used to receive a license.
According to the US constitution, this type of laws have almost always survived challenges. Tours Check on the “rational basis”: As long as the regulation has a rational relationship with a legitimate state goal, it says goodbye to a constitutional pattern.
This is about as disrespectful as possible. In a case of 1955, in which the regulation of optics was involved, the Supreme Court of the United States made it clear that a law can be “unnecessary” or “wasteful” without being unconstitutional. Justice William O. Douglas stated that the reference to the Lochner -era of the early 20th century, when the court regularly made the government regulations and the protection of the employee, stated: “The day has disappeared when this dish uses the proper procedural clause of the 14th amendment to pretend the regulation of the terms and conditions and industrial conditions Uniform, improvised or outside the harmony with a certain school of Thiinkten. ” The court said that it is due to the legislation, not due to the courts, such measures.
Georgia did not accept Lochner 2.0 in his state constitution, but it rejected the “extraordinary respect” that the US constitution repented with the economic regulations. Reference to a “consistent and final” understanding that Georgians have the right to “do an honest employment [they] You may only choose the restrictions required for the public, ”the court stated a stricter review in order to determine any“ arbitrary ”burdens for people's ability to work.
“Georgia's proper process clause requires more than a Talismanic recitation of an important public interest,” said the court. Rather, the government has to show “a specific interest in health, security or public morality”. Protectionism or general interests of quality or honesty in goods and services are not sufficient reasons. There was no evidence here that non -licensed lactation consultants affirmed damage and numerous evidence that alternative training regimes were also effective. In the opinion of the court, the court believes that they were only speculative. For this reason, the alleged justification of the government was not sufficient for the law.
Georgia is not the only state that separates from the federal courts in cases with economic freedom. In 2015, the Supreme Court of Texas decided that the cosmetic laws and regulations in Texas could not be applied to eyebrow -thread, since the 750 hours of the necessary training for cosmetology -most of them were not “” as oppressive “than it violated in the Texas constitution. Similar cases are also available in Louisiana (hair braids) and Oklahoma (eyelash extensions). At a moment when the reform of the professional permit in many countries gains dynamics, state courts are available as important actors.
Alicia Bannon is editor -in -chief for the state court report. It is also director of the judicial program in the Brennan Center for Justice.
Proposed quotation: Alicia Bannon, Georgia, breaks with federal courts on economic freedom, Sᴛᴀᴛᴇ Cᴏᴜʀᴛ Rᴇᴘᴏʀᴛ (Jun. 12, 2023), https://stetecourt.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/georgia-break-fedal-conomic-liberty.
