,THEATTOWNEY GENERAL 

QFTEXAS 

April 6, 1967 

Honorable George T. Hinson Opinion No. M-49 

Chairman 

House Education Committee 

House of Reoresentatlves 

Re: Constitutionality of 

House Bill 659 which 

Austin, Texas would authorize statesupported Institutions 

to establish clothing 

and appearance requireDear Mr. Hlnson: merits. 

You have requested the opinion of this office a8 to 

whether House Bill 659, as proposed by the 60th Legislature, 

1967, Is constitutional. 

Section 1 of House Bill 659 provides that: 

"The administrative authorities of any 

state-supported institution may establish minimum 

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 of Medicine of the 

University of-Tekas had been dismissed for failure to ~maintaln 

the minimum grade requirements which had been adopted by the 

administration of the University of Texas. In upholding the 

authority of the University officials to promulgate these regulations, the Court stated in its opinion that: 

" .The authorities sustain certain 

generai rules with regard to the government 

of Institutions supported and maintained by 

the state. In 24 R.C.L. pp. 575-576, 8 24, 

the rule Is announced as follows: 'The courts 

will not Interfere wlth the exercise of dlscretlon by school directors In matters 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 Interfere with regulations adopted by school 

boards, and they will not consider whether the 

regulations are wise or expedient, but merely 

whether they are a reasonable exercise of the 

power and discretion of the board. Acting 

reasonably within 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 reasonableness and propriety 

of a rule or regulation duly made. The 

reasonableness of regulations is a question 

of law for the courts.' 

"In 24 R.C.L., pp. 646, 647, % 105, the 

following rule is announced: 'The enjoyment 

of the right of attending the public schools is 

necessarily conditioned on compliance by pupils 

with the reasonable rules, regulations, and requirements of the school authorities, breaches 

of which may be punished by suspension or expulsion. Ordinarily the school authorities have 

the right to define the offenses for which the 

punishment of exclusion from school may be lmposed, and to determine whether the offense has 

been committed, the limitation on this authority 

being that It must in both respects be reasonably 

exercised. The power of expulsion given to the 

directors is not limited to cases of lnfractlon 

of such rules as they may have theretofore adopted, 

but extends to cases where they may have become 

satisfied that the interests of the school require 

the expulsion of a pupil on account of his gross 

misbehavior, and the discretion vested in school 

authorities in this respect is very broad, but 

they will not be permitted to be arbitrary.'" 

(Emphasis added.) 

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 adminlstratlve authorities of state-supported Institutions the authority to 

establish minlmum standards for attire and personal appearance 

of persons admitted, committed, or employed by such institutions 

as is proposed In House Bill 659, However, any such minimum 

standards for attire and personal appearance adopted by the 

administrative authorities of state-supported Institutions would 

have to be reasonable. In this connection, the issue of whether 

a particular standard adopted by the administrative authorities 

of a state-supported institution is reasonable, can only be 

resolved by the courts upon a consideration of 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 institutions the authority 

to establish minimum standards for attire and personal appearance, 

it must also be pointed out that House Bill 659 must comply with 

the provisions of Section 35 of Article III of the Constitution 

of Texas which is set forth as follows: 

'No bill, (except general appropriation 

bills, which may embrace the various subjects 

and accounts, for and on account of which moneys 

are appropriated) shall contain more than one 

subject, which shall be expressed in its title. 

But if any subject shall be embraced in an act, 

which shall not be expressed in the title, such 

act shall be void only as io so much thereof, as 

shall not be so expressed. 

The caption of House Bill 659 provides that It is 

an act: 

.authorlzlng state-supported lnstltutions to'establlsh clothing and appearance requirements for persons availing themselves of the services 

offered by the institution. . . ." (Emphasis added.) 

However, Section 1 of House Bill 6.59 authorizes state-supported 

Institutions to establish these requirements for all persons: 

11 

. . .admitted to 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. (Emphasis added.) 

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 Legislature was in violation 

of Section 35 of 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 Implication negatives 

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 substantial portions 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 subject matter of the act? If 

by its title It appears to affect only the res‘iaents 

of particularly designated localities, while the 

rovlsions In the body of the bill affect other 

ocallties or territory, then the title Is misleading and unconstitutional., in so far as it 

affects the unnamed places." (Emphasis added.) 

While such cases as Lee v. State, 163 Tex. 89, 352 S.W.2d 

724 (19621, hold that cantlons of legislative enactments should be 

Iiberaily'construed so as to uphold the validity of the enactment 

if possible, we are of the opinion that House Bill 659 does not 

presently meet the requirements of Section 35 of 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'services offered bythe state-supported instlt.utions. However, the provisions in 

the body of House Bill 659 disclose that the enactment also 

affects those persons committed or confined by law to such 

institutions and those persons employed by 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 

35 of Article III of the Constitution of Texas, Insofar as It 

pertains to those persons committed or confined by law to statesupported Institutions and those persons employed by state-supported 

Institutions. 

- 227 c 
Hon. 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 administrative authorities 

of state-supported institutions the authority 

to establish minimum standards for attire and 

personal appearance of persons admitted, committed or employed by such institutions. 

House Bill 659, in its present 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-supported institutions and those 

persons employed by state-supported institutions. 

Vfi truly yours, 

Prepared by 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 

Charles Rose 

STAFF LEGAL ASSISTANT 

A. J. CARUBBI, JR. 

- 228 -