Title: VT Assoc. of Realtors v. State

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under V.R.A.P. 40
as well as formal revision before publication in the Vermont Reports.
Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Vermont Supreme
Court, 111 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05602 of any errors in order
that corrections may be made before this opinion goes to press.


                                No. 89-048


Vermont Association of Realtors, Inc.        Supreme Court

     v.                                      On Appeal from
                                             Washington Superior Court
State of Vermont, Vermont Real Estate
Commission                                   May Term, 1990


James L. Morse, J.

Thomas F. Heilmann of Heilmann, Ekman & Associates, Inc., Burlington, for
  plaintiff-appellant

Jeffrey L. Amestoy, Attorney General, Marilyn Signe Skoglund, Assistant
  Attorney General, and John H. Chase, Montpelier, for defendant-appellee

Ralph W. Holman, Chicago, Illinois, and Thomas F. Heilmann, Burlington, for
  amicus curiae National Association of Realtors



PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Peck, Gibson and Dooley, JJ., and Martin, Supr. J.,
          Specially Assigned



     GIBSON, J.   Plaintiff, Vermont Association of Realtors, Inc., appeals
from the dismissal of its complaint, which challenges (1) the statutory
provision establishing the composition of the Vermont Real Estate Commission
and (2) various rules promulgated by the Commission.  We affirm.
     In 1985, the Legislature generally amended the statute dealing with the
regulation of real estate brokers and salespersons.  Pursuant to the author-
ity conferred on it by that statute, the Vermont Real Estate Commission
promulgated various rules regulating the activities of real estate brokers
and salespersons.  Plaintiff filed a complaint asking the superior court (1)
to declare 26 V.S.A. { 2251(b) invalid and unenforceable and (2) to enjoin
the Commission from enforcing certain rules that it contends were promul-
gated without statutory authority and in violation of the Administrative
Procedure Act (APA).  On August 5, 1987, the court issued a preliminary
injunction against the enforcement of Rules 26(c)(3) and (4).  On November
23, 1988, the court granted the State's motion for summary judgment and
dismissed the case.
     On appeal, plaintiff argues that the court erred (1) in upholding the
constitutionality of 26 V.S.A. { 2251(b); (2) in applying the wrong standard
to determine whether the Commission exceeded the scope of its legislative
authority; (3) in deciding that the Commission did not act outside its
authority; and (4) in concluding that the Commission complied with the APA.
                                    I.
     Plaintiff first argues that 26 V.S.A. { 2251(b), which requires that
at least one of the three broker members of the seven-member Real Estate
Commission must not be a member of a professional real estate association,
is unconstitutional because it deprives plaintiff's members of their rights
of freedom of association and privacy guaranteed by the First Amendment to
the United States Constitution. (FN1) We disagree.
     Although there is some uncertainty over the scope of the First
Amendment right of association and the level of scrutiny with which to
review statutes that allegedly impair associational rights, courts
generally will first consider whether the governmental action infringes on
First Amendment interests, and, if so, the significance of the infringement
and the nature of the associational right infringed.  See Elrod v. Burns,