Opinion ID: 2584147
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Director's Motion for Summary Judgment

Text: Jou's fourth point of error asserts that the circuit court reversibly erred by granting the director's motion for summary judgment. He argues that he desired a declaration that procedures in the DCCA and its rules are corrupted and violate the state and federal constitutions. Jou further requested an injunction against the use of such corrupt and unconstitutional procedures. Jou avers that the director did not meet his burden of demonstrating the absence of genuine issues of material fact inasmuch as the director supported his motion for summary judgment with xerox copies of certain administrative rules. The director counters that Jou has asserted no specific facts supporting an as-applied constitutional challenge, and that his argument must be construed as a facial attack on the DCCA's administrative rules. The director contends that Jou has failed to demonstrate that the DCCA's administrative hearing system is facially unconstitutional. We agree with the director. Jou's claim against the director is framed as a facial constitutional attack. His first amended complaint states: The Director's administrative hearing system, in its entirety, on the face of its statutes rules and procedures; and, as this scheme is applied to Plaintiff, and others similarly situated, violates the Plaintiff's property and liberty rights as aforesaid and is completely unworthy of public confidence[.] (Emphasis added.) Jou did not assert any specific acts or omissions that limit his claim to an as-applied challenge. A facial challenge, by nature, implicates no facts in particular as it is purely a question of law. See Am. Falls Reservoir Dist. No. 2 v. Idaho Dep't of Water Res., 143 Idaho 862, 154 P.3d 433, 441 (2007) (A facial challenge to a statute or rule is `purely a question of law.') (Citing State v. Cobb, 132 Idaho 195, 969 P.2d 244, 246 (1998).); Shuger v. State, 859 N.E.2d 1226, 1231 (Ind.Ct.App. 2007) (Whether a statute is unconstitutional on its face is a question of law.); United States v. Quinones, 313 F.3d 49, 59 (2d Cir. 2002) (A challenge to the facial constitutionality of a criminal statute is a pure question of law.). There being no genuine issue of material fact, the director was only required to persuade the circuit court that the administrative hearing system was not facially unconstitutional as a matter of law. See Stanford Carr Dev. Co. v. Unity House, Inc., 111 Hawai`i 286, 295, 141 P.3d 459, 468 (2006) ([S]ummary judgment is appropriate if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.) (Brackets in original.) (Block quote formatting omitted.) (Citation omitted.). We therefore disagree with Jou that the director was required to demonstrate that if the case went to trial there was no competent evidence to support a judgment for the DCCA Director. To the extent that Jou offers no further appellate argument, he has failed to demonstrate that the circuit court reversibly erred by granting summary judgment in favor of the director.