Summary
The Supreme Court of Alabama reviewed a challenge to the Alabama Interior Design Consumer Protection Act, which restricted the practice of interior design to registered individuals. The court held that the Act was unconstitutionally overbroad and unreasonable because its definition of interior design encompassed ordinary interior-decorating services, such as advising on paint colors, furnishings, and accessories. The court affirmed the Jefferson Circuit Court's judgment declaring the Act unconstitutional.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the Alabama Interior Design Consumer Protection Act was unconstitutionally overbroad and unreasonable under Article I, §§ 6 and 13, of the Alabama Constitution because its definition of the practice of interior design restricted ordinary interior-decorating services.
- Whether the unconstitutional definition could be severed from the remainder of the Act under the Act's severability provision.
Holdings
- The Act's definition of the practice of interior design was unconstitutionally overbroad and unreasonable because it restricted useful activities such as advising clients about paint, pillows, furnishings, and other decorative materials without a substantial relation to public health, safety, morals, general welfare, public convenience, or general prosperity.
- The unconstitutional definition of the practice of interior design could not be severed from the remainder of the Act, so the Act in its entirety was unconstitutional.
Key quotations
“We conclude, therefore, that the Act “'imposes restrictions that are unnecessary and unreasonable upon the pursuit of useful activities'” and that those 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.'”” (406)
“Consequently, the objectionable portion cannot be severed, and the Act in its entirety is unconstitutional.” (407)
“The judgment of the trial court declaring Act No. 2001-660, Ala. Acts 2001, unconstitutional is affirmed.” (407)
Factual background
Diane Burnett Lupo had worked as an interior decorator for more than 22 years, advising clients about paint colors, artwork, flooring, fabrics, furniture, and accessories. The Alabama State Board of Registration for Interior Design determined that she was practicing interior design without a certificate of registration, imposed a $1,500 fine plus $235 in costs, and ordered her to cease the unregistered practice. The challenged Act defined the practice of interior design broadly enough to include advice about paint colors and decorative accessories, while exempting similar services when performed pursuant to a retail sale.
Procedural history
The Board sued Lupo to enforce a $1,500 administrative fine and costs and to enjoin her from practicing interior design without registration. After a nonjury trial, the Jefferson Circuit Court held the Act overly broad, unreasonable, and vague under the due-process provisions of the Alabama Constitution and enjoined enforcement. The circuit court denied the Board's postjudgment motion, and the Board timely appealed.