Powers v. Harris
379 F.3d 1208, 2004 WL 1875018, 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 17926 (2004)
Rule of Law:
Under rational-basis review, state economic regulations that do not affect fundamental rights or suspect classifications do not violate the Equal Protection or Due Process Clauses if they are rationally related to any conceivable legitimate state interest, including the protection of intrastate industries from competition.
Facts:
- The Oklahoma Funeral Services Licensing Act (FSLA) and associated Board rules regulate the funeral industry in Oklahoma.
- The FSLA requires any person selling funeral-service merchandise, including caskets, to be a licensed funeral director operating out of a licensed funeral establishment.
- This licensing requirement applies only to intrastate sales of time-of-need caskets, not to other funeral merchandise, pre-need casket sales, or casket sales to customers outside of Oklahoma by unlicensed Oklahomans, or to customers within Oklahoma by unlicensed out-of-state persons.
- Obtaining an Oklahoma funeral director's license requires 60 credit hours of undergraduate training, a one-year apprenticeship (including embalming 25 bodies), and passing both a subject-matter and an Oklahoma law exam.
- A licensed funeral establishment must have a fixed physical location, a preparation room meeting embalming requirements, and a merchandise selection room with at least five caskets.
- Kim Powers and Dennis Bridges own and operate Memorial Concepts Online, Inc., an Oklahoma corporation based in Oklahoma, that sells funeral merchandise over the internet but is not licensed by the Board as a funeral establishment or by the individuals as funeral directors (Powers is unlicensed, Bridges is licensed in Tennessee).
- Powers and Bridges wish to sell intrastate, time-of-need caskets to Oklahomans over the internet but have refrained due to a reasonable fear of prosecution under the FSLA.
- The District Court found that very little specialized knowledge is required to sell caskets, and less than five percent of the education and training required for licensure pertains directly to casket sales.
Procedural Posture:
- Kim Powers, Dennis Bridges, and Memorial Concepts Online, Inc. (Plaintiffs) filed a declaratory judgment action in the District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, asserting that the Oklahoma Funeral Services Licensing Act (FSLA) violated the Privileges and Immunities, Due Process, and Equal Protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.
- After a full bench trial, the District Court ruled in favor of the Oklahoma State Board of Embalmers and Funeral Directors (the Board) on all counts.
- Plaintiffs filed a timely notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
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 the Oklahoma Funeral Services Licensing Act, which limits the intrastate sale of time-of-need caskets to licensed funeral directors operating out of licensed funeral establishments, violate the Equal Protection or Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Tacha, Chief Circuit Judge
No, the Oklahoma Funeral Services Licensing Act does not violate the Equal Protection or Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment because intrastate economic protectionism constitutes a legitimate state interest, and the FSLA is rationally related to that interest. The court applied rational-basis review, the lowest level of scrutiny for economic regulations that do not affect fundamental rights or suspect classifications. Under this deferential standard, a statute must be upheld if it is rationally related to any conceivable legitimate government purpose, even if that purpose was not the actual motivation of the legislature. The court explicitly held that protecting one intrastate industry from competition (intrastate economic protectionism) is a legitimate state interest, distinguishing it from unconstitutional burdens on interstate commerce. Citing Supreme Court precedents like Fitzgerald v. Racing Assoc. of Cent. Iowa, Ferguson v. Skrupa, and Williamson v. Lee Optical, the majority concluded that the FSLA is 'very well tailored' to protecting the intrastate funeral home industry. The court rejected the application of a 'heightened' rational-basis review to economic issues, distinguishing cases like Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc. and Romer v. Evans as not applicable to challenges to economic regulation. Therefore, because the FSLA serves the legitimate state interest of intrastate economic protectionism and is rationally related to that goal, it is constitutional.
Concurring - Tymkovich, J.
No, the Oklahoma Funeral Services Licensing Act does not violate the Equal Protection or Due Process Clauses, as the legislative classification is rationally related to the legitimate state interest of consumer protection. While agreeing with the majority's application of traditional rational-basis review, Judge Tymkovich expressed concern with the majority's broad declaration that 'unvarnished economic protectionism' is a legitimate state interest. He argued that Supreme Court precedents, when upholding seemingly protectionist legislation, have consistently grounded the 'legitimacy' of state interests in terms of a public interest or good (e.g., consumer safety, economic development, historical preservation), not merely the bare preference of one economic actor. However, in this specific case, the record supported a finding that the funeral licensing scheme, despite its imperfections and potential to harm consumer interests by limiting choice and price, does further an element of consumer protection. The district court found that the Board had used the Act to combat consumer abuse by funeral directors, and the scheme pre-dated deregulation, suggesting it was not solely enacted to protect funeral directors from competition. Therefore, the law is upheld because it can rationally advance a non-protectionist public good, such as consumer protection.
Analysis:
This case significantly reinforces the highly deferential nature of rational-basis review for economic legislation under the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses. By explicitly holding that intrastate economic protectionism constitutes a legitimate state interest, the Tenth Circuit grants states substantial latitude in enacting regulations that favor local businesses, making such laws exceptionally difficult to challenge constitutionally. This decision, in direct contrast to some other circuit courts, also firmly rejects the application of any 'heightened' or 'more searching' rational-basis scrutiny to purely economic matters, cementing a minimal standard of review. Consequently, individuals seeking to challenge state occupational licensing laws or other economic regulations on these constitutional grounds will face a formidable burden, as courts are mandated to search for any conceivable rational basis to uphold such legislation.
