Opinion ID: 1454494
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 12

Heading: Regents' RegulationsThe Constitutional Question

Text: As a preliminary matter, the Board of Regents asserts that Peck's constitutional arguments are not properly before this court on appeal. In support of its assertion, the Board of Regents argues that the issue was not sufficiently raised in the district court. Although Peck's constitutional argument in the district court was brief, nevertheless, Peck did raise the issue of violation of equal protection, due process, and the right to travel. He specifically stated he did not abandon his claim of unconstitutionality. The Board of Regents thoroughly briefed the constitutional issues for the district court. The district court ruled that the challenged regulation is not unconstitutional on its face or as applied. The constitutional questions are properly before us. (We note that Peck has abandoned his claim that K.A.R. 88-3-2 violates the right to travel.)