Court Opinion

ID: 9758312
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 23:20:35.615348+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:28:49.271319
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Kelleher,
dissenting. I do not dispute the constitutional principles cited in the majority opinion, particularly the observation that our inquiry is limited solely to determining whether §5-32-4(4) “bears a real and substantial relationship to protecting the public from poorly trained practitioners and improper procedures in electrolysis.” 118 R.I. at 233, 373 A.2d at 188. My disagreement is with the majority’s conclusion.
Section 5-32-4(4) carries with it a presumption of constitutionality, and, in my opinion, it does bear a reasonable relationship to the protection of the public health. An electrologist removes excess hair by the use of electrified needles. It is obvious that an electrified needle in the hands of a poorly trained electrologist poses a substantial threat to the well-being of his or her clientele.
While the quality of hair-removal instruction might be a matter of some concern for the State of Illinois, when an unlicensed individual schooled in Illinois seeks a license to practice electrology here, it becomes a matter of great concern for the State of Rhode Island. The state has expressed its concern in the form of §5-32-4(4). Clearly, the General Assembly might have accommodated the out-of-state students by transferring those course credits earned elsewhere to their Rhode Island tally. It chose not *237to do so. The majority has. However, the Legislature’s failure to do so does not automatically render its alternative unconstitutional. Hardships to .the applicant aside, the alternative, in fact, bears a real and substantial relation to the protection of the .public from poorly trained practitioners. Our concern is with constitutionality, not with legislative wisdom. It is my belief that on this record the plaintiff has failed to overcome the presumption of constitutionality.
Bevilacqua & Cicilline, John J. Bevilacqua, for plaintiff.
Julius C. Michaelson, Attorney General, J. Peter Doherty, Special Asst. Attorney General, for defendants.