Opinion ID: 2624966
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Liberty and Property Interest to be Protected

Text: ¶ 46 Government may not deprive one of life, liberty, or property without due process of law as guaranteed by the fourteenth amendment to the United States Constitution [3] and article I, section 3 of the Washington State Constitution. [4] The right to employment without undue government interference and the right to a driver's license implicate both liberty and property. ¶ 47 The right to pursue a common occupation free from unreasonable governmental interference is of ancient origin. William Blackstone recognized, At common law every man might use what trade he pleased. 1 WILLIAM BLACKSTONE, COMMENTARIES . The Magna Carta guaranteed all merchants are to be safe and secure in leaving and entering England, and in staying and traveling [sic] in England ... to buy and sell free from all maletotes by the ancient and rightful customs. JAMES CLARKE HOLT, MAGNA CARTA 461-63 (2d ed.1992). In Rex and Allen v. Tooley, 80 Eng. Rep. 1055 (K.B.1614), Lord Edward Coke, Chief Justice of the King's Bench, considered and dismissed a suit against an upholsterer for failure to serve an apprenticeship before taking up his trade, holding, [N]o skill there is in this, for he may well learn this in seven hours. Id. at 1057. Thus unskilled labor was not subject to licensing perhaps appropriate to more technical trades. Expounding further, [B]y the very common law, it was lawful for any man to use any trade thereby to maintain himself and his family; this was both lawful, and also very commendable, but yet by the common law, if a man will take upon him to use any trade, in which he hath no skill; the law provides a punishment for such offenders, and such persons were to be punished in the court leet, and by actions brought, as by the cases before .... Id. at 1055. Thus Allen is an early example of the judicial recognition of the fundamental right to pursue an occupation, free from unreasonable governmental interference in the licensing context. Many other examples are marshaled in Timothy Sandefur, The Right to Earn a Living, 6 CHAP. L. REV. 207, 209-18 (2003). The English common law was the origin of the constitutional right as we know it in America. [5] ¶ 48 For substantive due process purposes the United States Supreme Court has likewise recognized the right to work for a living in the common occupations of the community is of the very essence of the personal freedom and opportunity that the Constitution was meant to protect. Truax v. Raich, 239 U.S. 33, 41, 36 S.Ct. 7, 60 L.Ed. 131 (1915). [6] Perhaps Justice William O. Douglas said it with the greatest eloquence: The right to work, I had assumed, was the most precious liberty that man possesses. Man has indeed as much right to work as he has to live, to be free, to own property. The American ideal was stated by Emerson in his essay on Politics, a man has a right to be employed, to be trusted, to be loved, to be revered. It does many men little good to stay alive and free and propertied, if they cannot work. To work means to eat. It also means to live. For many it would be better to work in jail, than to sit idle on the curb. The great values of freedom are in the opportunities afforded man to press to new horizons, to pit his strength against the forces of nature, to match skills with his fellow man. Barsky v. Bd. of Regents, 347 U.S. 442, 472, 74 S.Ct. 650, 98 L.Ed. 829 (1954) (Douglas, J., dissenting). ¶ 49 The right to pursue an occupation free from unreasonable governmental interference is fundamental. Supreme Court of N.H. v. Piper, 470 U.S. 274, 280 n. 9, 285, 105 S.Ct. 1272, 84 L.Ed.2d 205 (1985) (quoting United Bldg. & Constr. Trades Council v. City of Camden, 465 U.S. 208, 219, 104 S.Ct. 1020, 79 L.Ed.2d 249 (1984) in which the court has described, the pursuit of a common calling as one of the most fundamental of those privileges (emphasis added)). Washington also recognizes the fundamental right[] to carry on business. State v. Vance, 29 Wash. 435, 458, 70 P. 34 (1902); Grant County Fire Prot. Dist. No. 5 v. City of Moses Lake, 150 Wash.2d 791, 813, 83 P.3d 419 (2004) ( Grant County II ). ¶ 50 Duranceau v. City of Tacoma, 27 Wash.App. 777, 620 P.2d 533 (1980) applied the right in practice. There the city of Tacoma, attempting to discourage anyone from living in the watershed town of Lester, published a policy to deny use of a forest service road to logging operators who employed Lester residents. Ronald D. Duranceau, a Lester resident and logging company employee, commenced suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violation of his fundamental right to employment. Duranceau, 27 Wash. App. at 780, 620 P.2d 533. The Court of Appeals agreed, reversing a previous summary judgment of dismissal, holding, [t]he right to hold specific private employment free from unreasonable government interference, is a fundamental right subject to `strict scrutiny.' Id. ¶ 51 Ample precedent supports Amunrud's claim that he has not only a constitutional right but a fundamental one to pursue a common occupation free from unreasonable government interference. Professional and motor vehicle licenses create both property and liberty interests requiring due process protection. Barry v. Barchi, 443 U.S. 55, 99 S.Ct. 2642, 61 L.Ed.2d 365 (1979); Bell v. Burson, 402 U.S. 535, 91 S.Ct. 1586, 29 L.Ed.2d 90 (1971).