389 S.W.3d 660
Mo.2013Background
- Garozzo sought a mortgage loan originator license; Missouri SAFE Act restricts license issuance to felons within seven years; director denied license under §443.713(2)(a); circuit court held statute unconstitutional as bill of attainder, retroactive law, and due process violation; Missouri Supreme Court reverses the circuit court and upholds statute; decision addresses de novo review of constitutional challenges.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bill of attainder violates state/federal law | Garozzo argues §443.713(2)(a) is punitive Bill of Attainder | Missouri asserts no punishment; licensing statute for public protection | Not a Bill of Attainder; statute is regulatory, not punitive |
| Retrospective law violates Article I, §13 | §443.713(2)(a) retroactively affects Garozzo based on past plea | Law applies prospectively to licensing eligibility; not retroactive punishment | No §13 violation; past conduct considered for future licensure is permissible |
| Due process constraints (procedural) and license denial | Garozzo asserts deprivation of property interest without due process | No protected de facto license; process satisfied by agency review | No procedural due process violation; denial upheld |
| Substantive due process obligation | Denial of license arbitrary and irrational violates fundamental rights | Licensing regulation serves public protection; action not conscience-shocking | No substantive due process violation; decision aligns with regulatory purpose |
Key Cases Cited
- Doe v. Phillips, 194 S.W.3d 833 (Mo. banc 2006) (bill of attainder analysis standards)
- State ex rel. Bunker Res. Recycling & Reclamation, Inc. v. Mehan, 782 S.W.2d 381 (Mo. banc 1990) (specificity and punishment elements in attainder analysis)
- Selective Service System v. Minnesota Public Interest Research Group, 468 U.S. 841 (1984) (three-part test for punishment elements in statutes)
- Hawker v. People of New York, 170 U.S. 189 (1898) (legitimate non-punitive purpose supports licensing restriction)
- Duncan v. Missouri Bd. of Architects, Professional Engineers and Land Surveyors, 744 S.W.2d 524 (Mo. App. 1988) (licensing purposes protect the public rather than punish)
- State v. Young, 362 S.W.3d 386 (Mo. banc 2012) (retrospective-law analysis for post-conviction eligibility rules)
- Rayford (Missouri Real Estate Commission v. Rayford), N/A (Mo. appellate reference) (consideration of antecedent offense for present licensing not retrospective)
- State ex rel. Koster v. Olive, 282 S.W.3d 842 (Mo. banc 2009) (permit/structural regulation as present-protection need rather than punishment)
- F.R. v. St. Charles County Sheriffs Dept., 301 S.W.3d 56 (Mo. banc 2010) (retrospective effect analysis in rights/obligations)