Dent v. West Virginia
9 S.Ct. 231, 1889 U.S. LEXIS 1669, 129 U.S. 114 (1889)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state may enact regulations requiring professionals, such as physicians, to meet certain qualifications and obtain a license to practice, and such regulations do not deprive individuals of their property or liberty without due process of law under the Fourteenth Amendment, provided the requirements are reasonable and rationally related to ensuring public welfare.
Facts:
- West Virginia enacted a statute requiring all persons practicing medicine in the state to obtain a certificate from the State Board of Health.
- To obtain the certificate, a physician had to either be a graduate of a reputable medical college, have practiced medicine continuously in the state for ten years, or pass an examination administered by the Board.
- Dent was a physician practicing medicine in West Virginia.
- Dent presented a diploma to the Board, but the Board determined it was from an unrecognized school of medicine and thus insufficient to qualify for a certificate.
- Dent did not submit himself to the Board's examination to prove his qualifications.
- Dent continued to practice medicine without the required certificate, leading to his indictment.
Procedural Posture:
- Dent was indicted in a West Virginia trial court for practicing medicine in violation of the state statute.
- Following a trial, Dent was found guilty.
- Dent appealed the judgment to the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia, the state's highest court.
- The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia affirmed the lower court's judgment.
- Dent then brought the case to the Supreme Court of the United States on a writ of error.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a state law requiring physicians, including those already in practice, to obtain a certificate from the State Board of Health as a condition of practicing medicine violate the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause by depriving them of property without due process of law?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Field
No, the state law does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause. The right to pursue a lawful profession is a property right, but it is not absolute and is subject to the state's power to enact regulations for the protection of society. The State's power to provide for the general welfare authorizes it to prescribe reasonable regulations to secure the public against the consequences of ignorance, incapacity, and fraud. The requirements imposed by the West Virginia statute—possessing a diploma from a reputable college, having a specified period of experience, or passing an examination—are appropriate to the medical profession and attainable through reasonable application. Such legislation is not an arbitrary deprivation of rights, as it is general in its operation and is enforced through regular proceedings. The court distinguished this case from those involving punitive loyalty oaths (Cummings, Garland), which had no relation to professional fitness, whereas this law is directly aimed at ensuring skill and learning for the public's protection.
Analysis:
This case is a landmark decision affirming the state's police power to regulate professions, particularly those that impact public health and safety. It establishes that the right to practice a profession is not a fundamental right immune from government oversight but a qualified one subject to reasonable licensing and qualification standards. The ruling provided the constitutional foundation for the modern professional licensing schemes for doctors, lawyers, and numerous other occupations. It clarified that the Due Process Clause primarily protects against arbitrary and capricious legislation, not against rational regulations designed to protect the public welfare.
