Reasoning of the court

The Supreme Court ruled The Act was over broad, vague and unreasonable and that the state failed to prove that there was danger to the public. The Act as written was similar to another Alabama law where the vague unreasonable terms made it difficult to comply with the law. The Alabama constitution guarantees its citizens due process in “civil actions as well as criminal proceedings” (Smith, 2007). The court further ruled that The Act interfered with Ms. Lupo’s ability to earn a living and contract with others to provide interior decorating services. The Act contained a ‘retail sale exemption’. The exemption specifically excluded identical activities restricted in The Act if they were incidental to a retail sale. Activities such as selecting paint colors and throw pillows, if done in a department store as part of a retail transaction were not regulated under The Act. The same activities engaged in by an unregistered person using the title Interior Designer were a misdemeanor. The Board of Registration for Interior Design unsuccessfully argued that the court should rule as narrowly as possible so as to rule in favor of The Act. Had the language of The Act been clear and plain the court would have ruled to uphold The Act. The ambiguous terms of the law caused The Act to be found invalid in its entirety. The Board failed to prove that a violation of The Act would adversely affect public health, safety, morals and the general welfare of the people of Alabama, because other regulations already in existence provide this protection to the public. Industry leaders in other parts of the country weigh in on the concept. According to Mark Christian, lobbyist for the American Institute of Architects, California Counsel; “If you’re going to create a practice act, it should be to protect the public” (Maclachlan, 2008). The court ruled that The Act imposed an unnecessary, unreasonable restriction upon the pursuit of useful activities. Consequently the court ruled that The Act violated the Alabama Constitution.

Maclachlan, Malcolm. “Center for Constitutional Government”. Gold Water Institute. May 1, 2008. June 14, 2009. www.goldwaterinstitute.org/AboutUs/ArticleView.aspx?id=2179

Smith, Justice. Majority opinion. State of Alabama v. Lupo. Supreme Court of Alabama. October 12, 2007. June 13, 2009.