### ,THEATTOWNEY GENERAL QFTEXAS

April 6, 1967

Honorable George T. Hinson OpinionNo. M-49 Chairman House Education Committee House of Reoresentatlves Re: Constitutionalityof House Bill 659 which Austin, Texas would authorize statesupported Institutions to establish clothing and appearancerequireDear Mr. Hlnson: merits.

You have requested the opinion of this officea8 to whether House Bill 659, as proposedby the 60th Legislature, 

### 1967,Is constitutional.

Section 1 of House Bill 

### 659provides that:

"Theadministrativeauthorities of any state-supported institutionmay establishminimum standards for attire and personal appearance for all persons who are officially admitted to the use of the facllltles of such an Institution,committed
or confined by law to such an institution,or employed by such an institution.

In the case of Foley v. Benedict, 122 Tex. 193, 

### 55 S.W.2d 805 (19121,a student of the SchOoI ofMedicine of the University of-Tekashad been dismissed for failure to~maintaln theminimum grade requirementswhich had been adoptedby the administration of theUniversity of Texas. In upholding the authority of the University officials to promulgate these regulations, the Court stated in its opinion that:

" .Theauthorities sustain certain generai rules with regard to the government of Institutions supported andmaintained by the state. In 24 R.C.L. pp. 

### 575-576,8 24, the rule Is announced as follows: 'Thecourts will not Interferewlth the exercise of dlscretlonby schooldirectors Inmatters confided



### -224-Hon. George T. Hinson, page 2 (M-49)

by law to their judgment,unless there is a clear abuse of the discretion, or a violation of law. So the courts are usually disinclined to Interferewith regulations adoptedby school boards, and they will not considerwhether the regulations are wise or expedient,but merely whether they are a reasonable exercise of the power and discretion of the board. Acting reasonablywithin the powers conferred, it Is the province of the board of education t-rmine what things are detrimental to the successPul management, good order, and discipline of the schools and the rules required to produce these conditions. The presumption Is always in favor of the reasonablenessand propriety of a rule or regulationduly made. The reasonableness of regulations is a question of law for the courts.'

"In 24 R.C.L., pp. 646, 647, % 105, the followingrule is announced: 'Theenjoyment of the right of attending the public schools is necessarily conditioned on complianceby pupils with the reasonable rules, regulations, and requirements of the schoolauthorities,breaches of which may be punished by suspension or expulsion. Ordinarily the school authoritieshave the right to define the offenses for which the punishment of exclusion from schoolmay be lmposed, and to determine whether the offensehas been committed, the limitation on this authority being that Itmust in both respectsbe reasonably exercised. The power of expulsion given to the directors is not limited to cases of lnfractlon of such rules as theymay have theretoforeadopted, but extends to cases where theymay have become satisfied that the interests of the schoolrequire the expulsion of a pupil on account of his gross misbehavior, and the discretion vested in school authorities in this respect is verybroad, but they will not be permitted to be arbitrary.'" (Emphasisadded.)

See also the case of Cornette v. Aldridge, 408 S.W.2d 935 (Tex. Clv.App., 1966, error ref., n.r.e.).

In view of the foregoing authorities,we are of the opinion that it would not be unconstitutional for the Legislature

-225-.

Hon. George T. Hlnson, page 3 (M-49)

of the State of Texas to delegate to the adminlstratlveauthorities of state-supported Institutionsthe authority to establishminlmum standards for attire and personal appearance of persons admitted, committed, or employedby such institutions
as is proposed In House Bill 

### 659, However, any suchminimum standards for attire and personal appearance adopted by the administrativeauthorities of state-supported Institutionswould have to be reasonable. In this connection,the issue of whether
a particular standard adopted by the administrativeauthorities of a state-supported institution is reasonable, can only be resolved by the courts upon a considerationof the particular minimum standard in question.

While we are of the opinion that it would not be unconstitutional for the Legislature to delegate to the administrative authorities of state-supported institutionsthe authority to establishminimum standards for attire and personal appearance, itmust also be pointed out that House Bill 

### 659must complywith the provisions of Section 35 of Article III of the Constitution of Texas which is set forth as follows:

'Nobill, (exceptgeneral appropriation bills, which may embrace the various subjects and accounts, for and on account of which moneys are appropriated) shall containmore than one subject,which shallbe expressed in its title. But if any subject shall be embraced in an act, which shallnot be expressed in the title, such act shall be void only as io somuch thereof, as shall not be so expressed.

The caption of House Bill 

### 659provides that It is
an act: .authorlzlngstate-supportedlnstltutions to'establlsh clothing and appearance requirements for persons availing themselves of the services offeredby the institution.

. . ." (Emphasisadded.)

However, Section 1 of House Bill 

### 6.59 authorizes state-supported Institutions to establish these requirements for all persons:

11

. . .admittedto the use of the facilities of such an institution, committed or confined by law to such an ln$ltutlon, or employed by such an institution. (Emphasisadded.)

In the case of Sutherland v. Board of Trustees of

. Bishop Independent School District, 2bl S.W. 489 (Tex.Civ.

- 226-Hon. George T. Hinson, page 4 (M-49)

App. 1924, error ref,), the court had before it the Issue of whether a particular act of the Legislaturewas in violation of Section 

### 35of Article III of the Constitution of Texas. The court In Its opinion stated:

"The title of the act In question afflrmatlvely purports to affect two existing districts, which are expressly designated for that purpose, and by clear and impressive Implicationnegatives any purpose to legislate as to the two unnamed districts, and no one on reading the title could possibly understand or Infer from Its recitals that the provisions in the body of the act effectually deprive the Aqua Dulce and No. 4 districts of substantialportions of their territory,population, and revenues. The true test to be applied in cases of this character Is: Does the title fairly give notice by Its recitals, to all persons concerned, of the subjectmatter of the act? If by its title It appears to affect only the res‘iaents of particularlydesignated localities,while the rovlsions In the body of the bill affect other ocallties or territory, then the title Ismisleading and unconstitutional., in so far as it affects the unnamed places." (Emphasisadded.)
While such cases as Lee v. State, 

### 163Tex. 

### 89,352 S.W.2d 724 

### (19621,

hold that cantlons of legislativeenactments shouldbe Iiberaily'construedso as to uphold the validity of the enactment if possible, we are of the opinion that House Bill 

### 659does not presentlymeet the requirements of Section 

### 35of Article III of the Constitution of Texas and the test set out In Sutherland v. Board of Trustees of Bishop Independent School District, supra. The title or caution of House Bill 659 anoears to affect onlv those persons availing themselves of-the'servicesoffered bythe state-supported instlt.utions.However, the provisions in the body of House Bill 

### 659disclose that the enactment also affects those persons committed or confinedby law to such institutions and those persons employedby such institutions.

In view of the foregoing,we are of the opinion that House Bill 

### 659 in its present form is in violation of Section 

### 35of Article III of the Constitution of Texas, Insofaras It pertains to those persons committed or confined by law to statesupported Institutionsand those persons employed by state-supported Institutions.

-227cHon. Qeorge T. Hlnson, page 5 (M-49)

SUMMARY

House Bill 659, as proposed by the 60th Legislature is constitutional Insofar as it delegates to the administrativeauthorities of state-supported institutionsthe authority to establishminimum standards for attire and personal appearance of persons admitted, committed or employed by such institutions.

House Bill 659, in itspresent form, violates the caption requirements of Section 35 of Article III of the Constitution of Texas insofar as it pertains to those persons committed or confined by law to state-supportedinstitutionsand those persons employed by state-supported institutions.
Vfi truly yours,

Preparedby Pat Bailey Assistant Attorney General PB:sck:mkh

APPROVED: OPINION COMMITTEE

Hawthorne PhIllips, Chairman W. V. Geppert, Co-Chairman William J. Craig Alan Minter Linward Shivers CharlesRose

STAFF LEGAL ASSISTANT A. J. CARUBBI, JR.

-228-