Document: 372 U.S. 726 83 S.Ct. 1028 10 L.Ed.2d 93 William M. FERGUSON, Attorney General for the State of Kansas, et al., Appellants,v.Frank C. SKRUPA, doing business as Credit Advisors. No. 111. Argued March 20, 1963. Decided April 22, Ferguson, Wellington, Kan., appellants. Lawrence Weigand, Wichita, appellee. Mr. Justice BLACK delivered opinion Court. 1 In this case, properly here on appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1253, we are asked to review judgment a three-judge District Court enjoining, being in violation Due Process Clause Fourteenth Amendment, Kansas statute making it misdemeanor any person engage 'in debt adjusting' except an incident 'the lawful practice law state.'1 The defines 'debt contract, express, or implied with particular debtor whereby agrees pay certain amount money periodically engaged adjusting who shall consideration distribute same among specified creditors accordance plan agreed upon.' 2 complaint, filed by appellee Skrupa 'Credit Advisors,' alleged that was defined statute, his 'useful and desirable' one, activities were not 'inherently immoral dangerous' way contrary public welfare, therefore could be 'absolutely prohibited' Kansas. court heard evidence tending show usefulness desirability state officials lends itself grave abuses against distressed debtors, particularly lower income brackets, these such gravity number States have strictly regulated prohibited altogether.2 found Skrupa's did fall within Act's proscription concluded, one judge dissenting, Act prohibitory, regulatory, but even if construed part regulatory unreasonable regulation 'lawful business,' which held amounted Amendment. accordingly enjoined enforcement statute.3 3 only case discussed below support its invalidation Commonwealth v. Stone, 191 Pa.Super. 117, 155 A.2d 453 (1959), Superior Pennsylvania struck down almost identical act involved here. Stone regulate, prohibit, 'legitimate' business. Finding adjusting, called 'budget planning' 'against interest' concluding 'see no justification interference' business, ruled State's unconstitutional. so, relied heavily Adams Tanner, 244 590, 37 662, 61 L.Ed. 1336 (1917), forbids prohibit is 'useful' dangerous welfare.' 4 Both present adopted philosophy cases like it, province courts draw their own views morality, legitimacy, order decide whether bears too upon so violates due process. Under system government created our Constitution, up legislatures, courts, wisdom utility legislation. There time when used strike laws thought unreasonable, is, unwise incompatible some economic social philosophy. manner used, example, nullify prescribing maximum hours work bakeries, Lochner New York, 198 45, 25 539, 49 937 (1905), outlawing 'yellow dog' contracts, Coppage 236 1, 35 240, 59 441 (1915), setting minimum wages women, Adkins Children's Hospital, 261 525, 43 394, 67 785 (1923), fixing weight loaves bread, Jay Burns Baking Co. Bryan, 264 504, 44 412, 68 813 (1924). This intrusion judiciary into realm legislative value judgments strongly objected at time, Holmes Brandeis. Dissenting from Court's invalidating resale price theatre other tickets, said, 5 'I think proper course recognize Legislature can do whatever sees fit unless restrained express prohibition Constitution United State, Courts should careful extend prohibitions beyond obvious meaning reading them conceptions policy may happen entertain.'4 6 And earlier he had emphasized that, 'The criterion constitutionality believe good.'5 7 doctrine prevailed Lochner, Coppage, Adkins, Burns, cases—that process authorizes hold unconstitutional they legislature has acted unwisely—has long since been discarded. We returned original constitutional proposition substitute beliefs bodies, elected pass laws. As stated unanimous 1941, 'We concerned * wisdom, need, appropriateness legislation.'6 Legislative bodies broad scope experiment problems, does sit 'subject intolerable supervision hostile basic principles wholly protection general clause Amendment intended secure.'7 It now settled 'have power legislate what injurious practices internal commercial affairs, run afoul specific federal prohibition, valid law.'8 8 face abandonment use 'vague contours'9 majority believed economically unwise, reliance Tanner mistaken would adherence overruled West Coast Hotel Parrish, 300 379, 57 578, 81 703 (1937). Not abandoned, also 15 years ago expressly pointed another having 'clearly undermined' Adams.10 conclude free legislation needed deal adjusting. Unquestionably, there arguments showing utility, addressed legislature, us. refuse 'superlegislature weigh legislation,'11 emphatically go back 'to laws, industrial conditions, because improvident, out harmony school thought.'12 Nor able willing lines calling 'prohibitory' 'regulatory.' Whether takes textbook Adam Smith, Herbert Spencer, Lord Keynes, concern ours.13 wise unwise. But relief, needed, lies us body constituted Kansas.14 9 statute's exception lawyers denial equal nonlawyers. Statutes create many classifications deny protection; 'invidious discrimination' offends Constitution.15 gives rise relationship trust adjuster will, situation insolvency, marshalling assets proceeding bankruptcy. adjuster's client need advice legality various claims him remedies existing governing debtor-creditor relationships, provisions Bankruptcy Act—advice nonlawyer cannot lawfully give him. If wants limit lawyers,16 Equal Protection forbid it. find merit contention violated failure title thinks ought Constitution. Reversed. 11 HARLAN concurs ground measure rational relation constitutionally permissible objective. See Williamson Lee Optical Co., 348 483, 491, 75 461, 466, 99 563. Kan.Gen.Stat.(Supp.1961) 21—2464. Twelve outlawed Fla.Stat.Ann. (1962) §§ 559.10—559.13; Ga.Code Ann. (Supp.1961) 84—3601 84—3603; Me.Rev.Stat.Ann. c. 137, 51—53; Mass.Gen.Laws (1958) 221, 46C; N.J.Stat.Ann. (Supp.1962) 2A:-99A—1 2A:99A—4; N.Y.Penal Law 410—412; Ohio Rev.Code (1962 Supp.) 4710.01 4710.99; Okl.Stat.Ann. Tit. 24, 15—18; Pa.Stat.Ann. 18, 4899; Va.Code 54—44.1; W.Va.Code (1961) 6112(4); Wyo.Stat.Ann. (1957) 33—190 33—192. Seven regulate Cal.Fin.Code (1955 Supp. 1962) 12200—12331; Ill.Stat.Ann. 16 1/2, 251—272; Mich.Stat.Ann. 23.630(1)—23.630(18); Minn.Stat.Ann. (1947 1962 332.04—332.11; Ore.Rev.Stat. 697.610—697.992; R.I.Gen. Laws 5—42—1 5—42—9; Wis.Stat.Ann. 218.02. Jersey upheld question. American Budget Corp. Furman, N.J.Super. 134, 170 63, aff'd per curiam, 36 N.J. 129, 175 622 (1961). Sanborn, 210 F.Supp. 200 (D.C.D.Kan.1961). Tyson & Brother, etc. Banton, 273 418, 445, 446, 47 426, 433, 434, 71 718 (1927) (dissenting opinion). Brandeis joined dissent, dissented Sanford separately. 567, 570, 406, (1923) Chief Taft, Sanford, dissented. took part. Olsen Nebraska ex rel. Western Reference Bond Assn., 313 236, 246, 862, 865, 85 1305 (1941) (upholding limiting fee charged private employment agencies). Sproles Binford, 286 374, 388, 52 581, 585, 76 1167 (1932). Hughes, Court, added, 'When subject police state, debatable questions reasonableness Legislature, entitled form judgment, action range discretion set aside compliance burdensome.' Id., 388—389, 585. Lincoln Federal Labor Union, Northwestern Iron Metal 335 536, 69 251, 257, 212 (1949). went far say compensation due, restrict sufficient force behind it.' Brother 568, 405, (Holmes, J., dissenting). 535, 256, (1949), referring S.Ct (1941). Ten later, Breard Alexandria, 341 622, 631—632, 920, 927, 95 1233 (1951), again commented infirmity Adams. Day-Brite Lighting, Inc., Missouri, 342 421, 423, 72 407, 96 469 (1952). 12 488, 464, 563 (1955). 13 14th enact Spencer's Social Statics.' 74, 75, 546, (1905) 14 Daniel Family Security Life Ins. 336 220, 224, 550, 552, 632 (1949); Secretary Agriculture Central Roig Ref. 338 604, 618, 70 403, 410, 94 381 (1950). 488—489, 465, (1955); Lindsley Natural Carbonic Gas 220 61, 78—79, 31 337, 340, 55 369 (1911). Massachusetts Virginia pooling laymen declaring constitute law. Va. Code 54 44.1. Home Service, Boston Bar Mass. 228, 139 N.E.2d 387 (1957).

Category: 7