Opinion ID: 2074514
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Interpreting Section 13858 Against Cobb Violates Due Process

Text: [¶ 57] A law ... may ... be challenged on its face as unduly vague, in violation of due process. Vill. of Hoffman Estates v. The Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc., 455 U.S. 489, 497, 102 S.Ct. 1186, 71 L.Ed.2d 362 (1982). Concepts of due process flowing from both the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article I, § 6-A, of the Maine Constitution, require that those subject to sanction by law be given fair notice of the standard of conduct to which they can be held accountable. Town of Baldwin v. Carter, 2002 ME 52, ¶ 10, 794 A.2d 62, 67 (quotation marks omitted). A law is improperly vague when its language either forbids or requires the doing of an act in terms so vague that people of common intelligence must guess at its meaning. City of Portland v. Jacobsky, 496 A.2d 646, 649 (Me. 1985). Although the void-for-vagueness doctrine receives its commonest application in the criminal law context, `[T]he doctrine has [also] been applied in instances where one must conform his conduct to a civil regulation.' Kelby, 360 A.2d at 531 (quoting Shapiro Bros. Shoe Co., Inc. v. Lewiston-Auburn Shoeworkers Protective Ass'n, 320 A.2d 247, 253 (Me.1974)) (alteration in original). [¶ 58] Here, the statute does not explicitly prohibit Cobb from diagnosing and treating, and other sections of the statute and the Board's rules and forms implicitly authorize her to do so. Thus, the statute is vague because Cobb was not given an opportunity to know what was prohibited and to adjust her conduct or status accordingly. Therefore, her due process rights were violated when she was prosecuted for practicing beyond the scope of her license. [¶ 59] For the forgoing reasons, I would vacate.