Opinion ID: 1867524
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Other Constitutional Issues Asserted by the Hunters

Text: Because of our conclusion that the Licensure Act is not unconstitutionally vague, we must consider the Hunters' other constitutional arguments to determine whether they provide a basis on which to affirm the trial court's ruling. The Hunters argue that the Licensure Act, as applied in this case, violates the following sections of Article I of the Constitution of Alabama of 1901: § 6 (addressing the right of an accused to confront witnesses and to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses); § 10 (no person shall be barred from prosecuting or defending before any tribunal in this state, by himself or counsel, any civil cause to which he is a party); and § 13 (all courts shall be open and every person . . . shall have a remedy by due process of law and justice shall be administered without sale, denial or delay.). The Hunters also argue that application of the Licensure Act violates the Due Process Clause of Amendment XIV of the United States Constitution because (1) it prevents a party from obtaining witnesses in his or her favor; (2) it authorizes a biased decision-maker; (3) it bars a person from prosecuting or defending a civil cause in the courts; (4) it prevents justice from being administered without sale, denial or delay; and (5) it unconstitutionally criminalizes testimony. We reject these arguments. The due process clause is satisfied if the law bears a reasonable relation to a proper legislative purpose and is neither arbitrary nor discriminatory. Fowler v. State, 440 So.2d 1195, 1198 (Ala.Crim.App.1983). The practice of engineering affects the public interest, health, and welfare and falls under the police power of the state. See § 34-11-2(b), Ala.Code 1975 (recognizing that engineering is a learned profession and that [i]n order to safeguard life, health, and property, and to promote the public welfare, the practice of engineering is subject to regulation in Alabama); see also Wheeler v. Bucksteel Co., 73 Or.App. 495, 500, 698 P.2d 995, 997 (1985) (The dangers of incompetent engineers to the public at large are obvious. The law provides for thorough regulation of the profession in order to maintain the necessary standards of competence and ethical behavior.). A licensing requirement is a rational and reasonable step toward accomplishing the stated goal of the Licensure Act: to safeguard life, health, and property and to promote the public welfare. Nor is there an arbitrary or discriminatory effect from the Licensure Act sufficient to work a deprivation of due process. The Hunters' claim that the Licensure Act allows for a local prejudice is pure speculation; the Hunters have presented no evidence to support this claim. In contrast, the Water Board argued that the approval rate for out-of-state applicants seeking an Alabama engineering license is 99.16%, and the Hunters have not challenged that statement. Additionally, the Alabama Legislature has elected to regulate, among many other professions, physicians, lawyers, architects, certified public accountants, as well as engineers. However, simply because the legislature has not enacted identical licensing requirements for other professions does not require the conclusion that the Licensure Act is arbitrary or that engineers have been unfairly treated or unfairly singled out. This Court has recognized: [T]he legislature need not `strike at all evils at the same time or in the same way.' It is legitimate for the legislature to proceed `one step at a time, addressing itself to the phase of the problem which seems most acute to the legislative mind.' As the solution of the instant problem is a legitimate legislative objective and the classification used to achieve that objective is a reasonable one, the legislature here is not exceeding its constitutional prerogative. . . .  Tyson v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp., 399 So.2d 263, 272 (Ala.1981) (citations omitted). See also Spann, 270 Ala. at 400, 118 So.2d at 743 (concluding that a statutory licensing requirement and exceptions thereto applicable to architects were not unconstitutionally vague and did not improperly create a discriminatory classification; It is within the scope of legislative authority to make classifications in its regulatory enactments. . . . Mere inequality under such classification is not sufficient to invalidate a statute.). We find nothing discriminatory or arbitrary in the Licensure Act. Moreover, all of the above arguments amount to nothing more than the unfounded assertion that if a litigant's expert of choice is not permitted to testify, then the litigant's access to the courts is unfairly restricted. However, the Licensure Act does not deny or restrict the Hunters or any other litigant's access to the courts. As noted above, proffered expert witnesses often are disallowed for a variety of reasons without infringing on a litigant's right to access the courts. Additionally, there are ample licensed engineers in the State of Alabama whose testimony the Hunters may seek to use at trial. Moreover, if the expert of choice is from outside the State certification in licensing process overly burdensome of Alabama, he or she merely needs to obtain order to offer his or her testimony. The set forth by the Licensure Board is not, and we find nothing in this process to indicate that the Licensure Act is discriminatory or arbitrary. The Hunters also argue that the addition of the term testimony to the Licensing Act violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States and the right of equal protection guaranteed by the Alabama Constitution of 1901, Art. I, §§ 1, 6, and 22. The Hunters note that, other than the Licensure Act, which is applicable only to engineers, the legislature has not amended any other statute governing professional practices in Alabama to prohibit the giving of testimony by persons unlicensed in the State of Alabama in that particular profession. They point to the definition in the Alabama Code of the practice of psychology and to the Alabama Medical Liability Act as examples of the treatment by the legislature of other professional practices that are not subject to the same licensing requirement as are engineers. They argue that subjecting the practice of engineering to this prohibition while not subjecting other professional practices to it equates to class legislation, thereby exceeding the authorized police powers of the legislature and offending the Equal Protection Clause of the United States and of the Alabama Constitution of 1901. We find no merit in this argument. Because this statute involves neither a suspect class nor a fundamental right the rational-basis test is the standard applicable to the Hunters' equal-protection claim. See Plitt v. Griggs, 585 So.2d 1317 (Ala.1991) (discussing similar equal-protection challenge to the Alabama Medical Liability Act; court applied the rational-basis test because the Alabama Medical Liability Act involved neither a suspect class nor a fundamental right). When applying the rational-basis test, this Court must determine (1) whether the classification furthers a proper governmental purpose, and (2) whether the classification is rationally related to that purpose. Gideon v. Alabama State Ethics Comm'n, 379 So.2d 570, 574 (Ala.1980). If both factors are established, the classification does not violate the Equal Protection Clause. The Licensure Act identifies its purpose as safeguarding life, health, and property and promoting the public welfare. § 34-11-1(7) and § 34-11-2(b), Ala.Code 1975. This is unquestionably a proper governmental purpose. Additionally, the legislature is well within its powers to conclude that offering sworn testimony regarding engineering matters constitutes the practice of engineering. That is the prerogative of the legislature, and we can find no deficiency in this conclusion. It is not irrational to assume that if persons who testify as to engineering matters have already met the requirements for licensure as a professional engineer in this state, then those persons are likely to have a desirable level of expertise and knowledge in engineering matters. Additionally, it is not irrational to assume that those persons who are unable to meet the licensing requirements of this State are less likely to have a desirable level of education and experience regarding engineering matters. For these reasons, the legislature could have concluded that imposing a licensing requirement on those persons wishing to provide sworn testimony regarding engineering matters would further the stated goal of safeguarding life, health, and property and promoting the public welfare. Additionally, legislation necessarily involves some degree of line-drawing. United States R.R. Ret. Bd. v. Fritz, 449 U.S. 166, 179, 101 S.Ct. 453, 66 L.Ed.2d 368 (1980). In Tyson v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp., supra, superseded by statute as recognized in Johnson v. Garlock, Inc., 682 So.2d 25 (Ala.1996), this Court addressed an equal-protection challenge to a statute: [I]t is important to state that we cannot find [a legislative] Act invalid `because [we] think there are elements therein which are violative of natural justice, . . . harsh or in some degree unfair . . . or . . . of doubtful propriety. All of these questions of propriety, wisdom, necessity, utility, and expedience are held exclusively for the legislative bodies. . . . [T]he only question for the court to decide is one of power, not of expediency or wisdom.' Whether in fact the Act will efficaciously or wisely accomplish the purposes of the Act is not the question; the equal protection clause is satisfied by our conclusion that the legislature could rationally have decided that it would do so.' `[The legislature is] not required to convince the courts of the correctness of [its] legislative judgments. Rather, those challenging the legislative judgment must convince the court that the legislative facts on which the classification is apparently based could not reasonably be conceived to be true by the governmental decision-maker. `. . . . `[I]t is not the function of the courts to substitute their evaluation of legislative facts for that of the legislature.' . . . . A statutory discrimination between classes is held to be relevant to a permissible, legislative purpose if any state of facts reasonably may be conceived to justify it. The health, safety, and the provision of a remedy for Alabama citizens who are exposed to asbestos and thereby suffer injury are legitimate and reasonable objectives of the legislature. 399 So.2d at 271-72 (citations omitted). Additionally, as noted above, the Alabama Legislature has chosen to regulate professions other than engineering. It simply has chosen not to regulate those professions in the same manner as it did the engineering profession. However, the Equal Protection Clause does not require that the legislature treat each classification the same. See Tyson, 399 So.2d at 272 (quoted above); see also Spann, 270 Ala. at 400, 118 So.2d at 743 (It is within the scope of legislative authority to make classifications in its regulatory enactments. . . . Mere inequality under such classification is not sufficient to invalidate a statute.). We find that the effect of Act No. 97-683  requiring a professional engineering license in order to testify under oath as to engineering matters  was rationally and reasonably related to the legislature's stated goal of regulating the practice of engineering in order to safeguard life, health, and property and to promote the public welfare. See § 34-11-1(7), and § 34-11-2(b), Ala.Code 1975. Thus, the legislature could have concluded that imposing a licensing requirement on those persons wishing to testify as to engineering matters would further the stated purposes of the Licensure Act. Accordingly, the licensure requirement of § 34-11-1(7), Ala. Code 1975, does not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution or equal protection of the laws as guaranteed by the Alabama Constitution. Next, the Hunters argue that the Licensure Act, as amended, violates the separation-of-powers doctrine set forth in Art. III, §§ 42 and 43, Const. of Ala.1901, because it is an undue intrusion by [the] Legislature on the proper functioning of the Judicial Branch. (Hunters' brief at p. 82.) We disagree. This Court unquestionably has the authority to adopt those rules necessary to govern the judicial process, at both the trial and appellate levels. However, where the rules adopted by this Court conflict with a subsequent legislative enactment, the legislative enactment takes precedence. See, e.g., Ex parte Kennedy, 656 So.2d 365 (1995) (recognizing that where the legislature adopts a general act of statewide application, the legislature may change the rules promulgated by this Court that govern the administration of all courts). Next, the Hunters argue that the Licensure Act, as amended, violates the Interstate Commerce Clause, Art. I, § 8, cl. 3, of the United States Constitution. They argue that the Licensure Act interferes with interstate commerce by prohibiting out-of-state engineers from testifying in Alabama courts and that this prohibition has no putative local benefit to justify the interference. However, the Licensure Act does not prohibit out-of-state engineers from testifying in Alabama or prohibit them from serving as forensic experts in this State. The Act merely requires that out-of-state engineers wishing to testify obtain local certification before doing so. The burden of registration is de minimis compared to the benefit obtained by the Licensure Act: the protection of life, health, and property that is obtained by regulating the practice of engineering. That is all that is required. See Pike v. Bruce Church, 397 U.S. 137, 142, 90 S.Ct. 844, 25 L.Ed.2d 174 (1970) (Where the statute regulates even-handedly to effectuate a legitimate local public interest, and its effects on interstate commerce are only incidental, it will be upheld unless the burden imposed on such commerce is clearly excessive in relation to the putative local benefits.). See also 397 U.S. at 144, 90 S.Ct. 844 (recognizing that the field of public safety is unquestionably appropriate for local regulation). We also note that several of the Hunters' other constitutional arguments are unsupported by authority. To the extent the Hunters provide no authority in support of their claims, we need not specifically address those claims. See City of Birmingham v. Business Realty Inv. Co., 722 So.2d 747 (Ala.1998) (recognizing that an appellate court need not consider an issue unsupported by authority); and Rule 28(a)(10), Ala. R.App. P. For the above stated reasons, we find no merit in the other constitutional arguments asserted by the Hunters. We therefore find no basis on which to declare Act No. 97-683 or § 34-1-11, Alabama Code 1975, unconstitutional.