Opinion ID: 1965862
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Right to Earn a Livelihood in a Lawful Calling

Text: Riley argues that granting him a commercial fishing license, instead of the principal-effort license that he sought, violates his fundamental right to engage in a lawful occupation. The due process clause says nor shall any state deprive any [citizen] of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. U.S. Const. Amend. XIV, sec. 1; see R.I. Const. art. 1, sec. 2. The Rhode Island Supreme Court has recognized that, Liberty, as meant by the clause, is a broad concept including not only freedom from bodily restraint but also the right of the individual to contract, the right of the individual to engage in the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, and generally to enjoy privileges long recognized as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by a free people. In re Advisory Opinion to the House of Representatives Bill 85-H-7748, 519 A.2d 578, 581 (R.I.1987) (citing Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 572, 92 S.Ct. 2701, 33 L.Ed.2d 548 (1972)); see also Berberian, 87 R.I. at 231, 139 A.2d at 872 (the liberty which is guaranteed to every person by both our state and federal constitutions includes the right to be free from unreasonable interference in the pursuit of a livelihood). However, in our opinion, this statute does not frustrate Rileys fundamental right to pursue a lawful calling because Riley concedes that he has a license to fish commercially. This Court cannot agree that Riley has a fundamental right to have the specific license he seeks, which would allow him to take more valuable species of fish. We do not believe that this is an unreasonable regulation on Rileys ability to be a commercial fisherman because he still is able to harvest more than a hundred species of sea creatures, even though he is unable to pursue those that are the most profitable, except in a recreational manner. Riley may still fish commercially within the licensing scheme and applicable restrictions that the statute requires. See Cherenzia, 847 A.2d at 824. Furthermore, we think it is instructive that this Court has held that the General Assembly's power to regulate marine fisheries is broad and plenary. See Cherenzia, 847 A.2d at 822. To uphold its constitutional duty to protect and maintain the fisheries in Rhode Island, we have said that the General Assembly  may even prohibit free fishing for a time and for such times as in their judgment it is for the best interest of the State so to do. Opinion to the Senate, 87 R.I. 37, 39, 137 A.2d 525, 526 (1958) (quoting Payne Butler, 31 R.I. at 327, 77 A. at 158). Therefore, we hold that no fundamental right to engage in a lawful calling is implicated when a licensing scheme merely limits the type of species commercial fishermen may pluck from, the sea. When no fundamental right is at issue, substantive due process guards against arbitrary and capricious government action. Kaveny v. Town of Cumberland Zoning Board of Review, 875 A.2d 1, 10 (R.I.2005) (quoting. Brunelle v. Town of South Kingstown, 700 A.2d 1075, 1084 (R.I.1997)). To prove a violation of substantive due process, Riley must show that the provisions of the law are `clearly arbitrary and unreasonable, having no substantial relation to the public health, safety, morals, or general welfare.' see also Baffoni v. State, 118 R.I. 226, 233, 373 A.2d 184, 188 (1977) (citing State v. Lombardi, 104 R.I. 28, 31, 241 A.2d 625, 627 (1968)). To overcome this difficult burden, Riley argues that the qualifying criteria for a principal-effort license, namely, possessing a license prior to December 31 of the preceding year, utterly is unconnected to the publics health, safety, morals, and general welfare. [10] Riley relies upon Baffoni, to argue that these prerequisites are arbitrary and unreasonable. In Baffoni, the plaintiff was trained as an electrologist at an out-of-state school, but she was ineligible to take the licensing exam enabling her to practice in Rhode Island. Baffoni, 118 R.I. at 230, 373 A.2d at 186. The plaintiffs application to practice electrology was denied because she had not fulfilled a statutory requirement of 650 hours of training with a Rhode Island electrologist. Id. This Court held that the prerequisite violated her right to due process because it was arbitrary and unreasonable, and bereft of any substantial relation to the stated goals of safety. Id. at 235-36, 373 A.2d at 189. However, unlike Baffoni, in which the plaintiff was denied a license to practice at all, here Riley does have a commercial fishing license. Furthermore, we think that the requirement of possessing a license from the previous year has a real and substantial relationship to a legitimate governmental goal of limiting the number of licenses available to take restricted species. Although the date set forth in the statute, December 31, 2002, may seem like an arbitrary line in the sand, it is not unreasonable to give priority to fishermen, according to who already depended on this limited resource for their livelihood.