Texas State Board of Social Worker Examiners v. Katherin Youniacutt and Tammy Thompson

Summary

The Texas Fifteenth Court of Appeals held that constitutional challenges to Texas Occupations Code section 108.052(2), which automatically denies certain health-care-professional licenses to applicants with specified violent felony convictions, were facially invalid. The court concluded that the statute satisfied substantive and procedural due-course-of-law requirements and was rationally related to the government’s interest in protecting vulnerable patients. The court reversed the trial court’s denial of the State’s plea to the jurisdiction and rendered judgment dismissing the plaintiffs’ claims.

Holdings

1. The plaintiffs' substantive due course of law challenge to section 108.052(2) is facially invalid because the statute's purpose and actual effect are rationally related to the legitimate governmental interest in protecting vulnerable citizens from harm by licensed health-care professionals and are not so burdensome or oppressive as to violate Texas Constitution article I, section 19.
2. The plaintiffs' procedural due course of law challenge is facially invalid because the Legislature's enactment of section 108.052(2) provided procedural due process to the general class affected by the statute, and the plaintiffs alleged no failure to comply with the legislative process.
3. The plaintiffs' equal protection challenge is facially invalid because section 108.052(2)'s classification of master social workers is rationally related to the legitimate governmental interest in protecting vulnerable citizens, even assuming social workers are similarly situated to professional counselors and marriage and family therapists.
4. Because the plaintiffs' constitutional claims are facially invalid, the constitutional-claim waiver of sovereign immunity does not apply, and the trial court lacked jurisdiction to proceed on those claims.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the plaintiffs' substantive due course of law challenge to Texas Occupations Code section 108.052(2) was facially valid.
2. Whether the plaintiffs' procedural due course of law challenge was facially valid where the challenged restriction was enacted through the legislative process and denied individualized licensing consideration.
3. Whether the plaintiffs' equal protection challenge was facially valid because section 108.052(2) applies to social workers but not professional counselors and marriage and family therapists.
4. Whether the plaintiffs' facially invalid constitutional claims waived sovereign immunity and allowed the trial court to exercise jurisdiction.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded