My Own Argument

The Alabama Act was not very well written. The language it contained was extremely broad and open to wide interpretation. The retail exemption created a double standard in the Alabama interior design industry. A retail clerk who assisted a person in selecting a shower curtain was protected, for example. The same assistance, when provided by an unregistered person claiming to be an Interior Designer, was a crime. This confusing language resulted in the entire Act being invalidated by the Alabama Supreme Court. The basic requirements of certification and registration with the Board make sense and truly define Interior Design as a profession. These requirements include a college degree, work experience supervised by another registered Interior Designer and passage of the National Council for Interior Design Qualification (NCIDQ) test (Maclachlan, 2008) or a similar test. The Acts inclusion of certain decorating activities such as paint selection, flooring, furniture and throw pillows was ultimately its downfall. The Act failed to draw a clear distinction between an interior decorator and an Interior Designer. An Interior Designer meets certain basic characteristics of a professional. These include a college degree, a test, experience and a professional association with a code of ethics. Doctors, lawyers, accountants, architects, and interior designers share these common attributes. Many states throughout the country have ‘title statutes’. Unless an individual has met the licensing or certification requirements, they are prohibited from using that title. Members of the general public have certain expectations when they hire a doctor or an attorney (lawyer). It is a matter of public trust. Interior Designers need to work to educate the public and raise the awareness of the differences between a decorator and a designer. The difference is similar to the difference between a bookkeeper and an accountant or an attorney and a legal assistant. There are a number of professional organizations such as the NCIDQ and the American Society of Interior Designers (ASID) who lobby state legislators to enact title statutes throughout the country. ASID is currently monitoring licensing bills in the Michigan legislature such as “HB 4772 – providing for the licensure of interior designers” (ASID, 2008). The NCIDQ mission statement in part is to establish “standards of competence in the practice of interior design” (NCIDQ, 2009). Both Nevada and Illinois; “regulate the practice of interior design” (Neily, 2008). The Nevada Revised Statutes provides that “no person may practice: as a registered interior designer or use the title of registered interior designer in this state without having a certificate of registration issued to him pursuant to this chapter” (NRS 623.180 1 (c)). The statute further defines the practice as a registered interior designer as rendering services to "enhance the quality and function of an interior area of a structure designed for human habitation or occupancy.”(NRS 623.0225). Oklahoma also regulates the use of the Interior Designer title and does not allow individuals to “advertise themselves accurately as interior designers” (Hoberock, 2008), unless they are registered with the state. The statute is being challenged by three people who feel that it treats them unfairly. Successful lobbying in Colorado resulted in the Colorado Department of Regulatory Agencies statement that “there is no evidence of physical or financial harm being caused to…consumers by the unregulated practice of interior designers" (Neily, 2008). It is up to Interior Designers across the country to work together, creating a high regard and respect for the profession. This concerted effort may ultimately result in more states recognizing Interior Designers as true professionals.

All Work Cited

American Society of Interior Designers. October 7, 2008. June 17, 2009.
http://www.asid.org/legislation/legislation/.

Hoberock, Barbara. “Interior Design Licensing in Court”. World Capital Bureau. October 1, 2008. June 17, 2009. http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.

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

Nagorsky, Edward. “Alabama Supreme Court Invalidated Interior Design Practice Act”. National Kitchen & Bath Association. October 22, 2007. June 4, 2009. http://nkba.org/press_releases_20071022.aspx

National Council for Interior Design Qualification.2009. June 17, 2009. http://www.ncidq.org.

Neily, Clark. “Watch Out for That Pillow”. The Wall Street Journal. April 1, 2008. June 17, 2009. http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB120701341410579079.html.

Nevada Revised Statutes. http://leg.state.nv.us/NRS/NRS-623.html#NRS623Sec0225.

Parker, Justice. Concurrent opinion. State of Alabama v. Lupo. Supreme Court of Alabama. October 12, 2007. June 13, 2009. http://www.lexisone.com/lxl/caselawsitemap/State-Courts-Alabama-100041-2-2007.html.

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

Rule of Law

Ms. Lupo challenged the constitutionality of The Act. She argued and the Alabama Supreme Court agreed that her constitutional rights had been violated through the enforcement of The Act. Once The Act was struck down, the Board worked quickly to revise and amend The Act so as to remove the constitutional issues. In March of 2008, the attorney general of the state of Alabama wrote a clarification opinion letter to Alabama State Senator Vivian Davis Figures. The opinion letter addressed a new provision, ACT 2006-518 and its affect on the Interior Design Consumer Protection Act. The new Act modified the old act to allow consulting services to be performed by an unregistered person even in the absence of a retail sale. It upheld, however, the restriction on the use of the title “Interior Designer to those who registered with the Board” (King, 2008).

King. American Society of Interior Designers. October 7, 2008. June 17, 2009.http://www.asid.org/legislation/legislation/.

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.

Decision Of The Court

The Supreme Court of Alabama in a unanimous decision struck down the Alabama Interior Design Consumer Protection Act of 2001 (“The Act”) as unconstitutional. The Honorable Justice Smith wrote the majority opinion (State of Alabama v. Lupo, 2007). The Honorable Justice Parker wrote a special opinion concurring with the majority on a specific point of law. Justice Parker took issue with an inference that the court acted with bias or politics. Parker agreed with the positions expressed in the majority opinion and provided additional constitutional law and authority. The Act was a “title act” (Smith, 2007). The act regulated the use of the title Interior Designer. Individuals desiring to hold themselves out as Interior Designers in Alabama were required to register with the Board of Registration for Interior Design and meet specific education and experience requirements. The Board sued and fined Ms. Lupo $1,500 plus an additional $235 for costs for using the title Interior Designer while failing to meet the requirements. The lower court found for Ms. Lupo and declared The Act unconstitutional. The Board appealed to the Supreme Court of the State of Alabama. The Supreme Court agreed with the lower court finding The Act to be “overly broad, unreasonable, and vague” (Smith, 2007).


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

Issue of the case

This case came before the Alabama Supreme Court when an unlicensed interior decorator challenged the states Interior Design Practice Act. When a trial court agreed with the decorator, the state appealed the decision, hoping that the higher court would reverse the decision. The decorator challenged the law on several platforms. (1) There were already laws on the books to protect the general public from the use of unsafe materials in home and commercial decoration. (2) It is not required that a homeowner or a business owner retain “any interior decorator or designer to decorate their homes or offices” (Nagorsky, 2007). The main contest to the law was based on a lack of threat to the public interest. The decorator who brought the suit believed that the law interfered with their basic right to earn a living.

Nagorsky, Edward. “Alabama Supreme Court Invalidated Interior Design Practice Act”. National Kitchen & Bath Association. October 22, 2007. June 4, 2009. http://nkba.org/press_releases_20071022.aspx

Illicit Trade of Counterfeit Goods

In my opinion, people don’t really understand what buying a counterfeit item really does to the market. The sale of illicit goods or knock-offs for bargain prices at first looks like a really good deal for the consumer. There are many “designer products” that sell for outrageous prices in the boutiques. The average person in America cannot afford to pay these prices. People who want that ‘look’ are the target market for the counterfeiters. Some of the knock-off artists are really good at making copies. So good in fact that there is even a difference in price paid for a good knock-off and a poor one.

From the perspective of the consumer faced with a tough economy, the availability of knock-offs is a good thing. It seems that even the counterfeiters need to make a living. Unfortunately, the existence of counterfeit goods actually causes the price of the real thing to go up.

From the designer’s perspective, their business is harmed by the counterfeit market. Many designers spend big money going after the knock-off artists to protect their designs. The cost of doing this is added to the price of the real designer item. Some designers even go to great lengths to incorporate some unique feature into their goods so that a knock-off can be easily spotted.

Over all I wish that the counterfeiters could be stopped because I think that the real designer original would then become a little more affordable. I personally would rather have the real thing.

Facts of the Case

Alabama had an interior design practice act that required any person that called themselves an interior designer to be certified by the state. The law, enacted in 2001, was challenged by someone who was doing interior decorating and had no certification and no degree. The Supreme Court of Alabama invalidated the law for two reasons. The first is that there are other laws both federal and state that insure only safe materials are available for use by consumers and the second reason is that there is no requirement in the state of Alabama that a homeowner or a business retain any interior decorator or designer to decorate their own space. The Supreme Court reasoned that there was no threat to the public if an uncertified designer decorated a space.