267 So. 3d 165
La. Ct. App.2018Background
- Mid-City Automotive, a licensed towing company, received three citations in 2015 for improper nonconsensual tows under LAC 55:I.1930; two fines were assessed and after the third citation its storage inspection license was suspended 30 days.
- Mid-City appealed administratively (record not before the court) and then sued in district court under La. R.S. 49:963 seeking declaratory and injunctive relief declaring parts of LAC 55:I.1907 invalid and stopping enforcement.
- LAC 55:I.1907(A)(4) is a schedule of administrative fines (ranges per violation, e.g., §1930: $200–$500); (A)(5)–(6) authorize suspensions (30 days minimum on a 3rd violation within 12 months) and revocations in defined circumstances.
- Mid-City challenged (1) the Schedule of Fines as an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power, and (2) the suspension/revocation provisions as exceeding statutory authority and as unconstitutionally vague.
- The district court upheld the rules; the court of appeal reversed as to the Schedule of Fines (holding it an unconstitutional delegation), enjoined enforcement of those fines, vacated the portion upholding suspension/revocation and remanded to determine whether Mid-City satisfied La. R.S. 49:963(D) prerequisites for declaratory relief on non-constitutional statutory-authority claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the delegation to the Office of State Police to set and levy administrative fines is an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power | The Act gives the agency unfettered discretion to set fines; no statutory standards or limits—thus unconstitutional delegation | The agency asserts authority under La. R.S. 32:1714 to adopt and levy fines and points to statutory maximum criminal fine ($500) as guidance | The court held the delegation invalid: the Act lacks sufficient standards to guide fine-setting (Schwegmann test prong 2 fails); LAC 55:I.1907(A)(4) invalid and injunction granted against its enforcement |
| Whether suspension and revocation provisions in LAC 55:I.1907(A)(5)–(6) exceed the agency’s statutory authority and/or are unconstitutionally vague | Mid-City: provisions exceed statutory authority and are vague/ambiguous | State: statute authorizes agency to license nonconsensual towing and to enforce rules, including suspension/revocation | The court vacated the district court’s holding upholding (A)(5)–(6) and remanded for the district court to determine if Mid-City satisfied La. R.S. 49:963(D) prerequisites for adjudicating statutory-authority claims; court did not resolve vagueness on the merits |
| Procedural prerequisite: whether Mid-City had to exhaust/seek agency review before filing suit under La. R.S. 49:963(D) | Mid-City contends constitutional challenges need not be submitted to agency; claims that exceed statutory authority require administrative review (which it attempted) | State argues the administrative appeal covered relevant matters and agency review was required for non-constitutional claims | Court: constitutional challenges need not be submitted to agency (agency cannot rule on constitutionality) so the delegation claim was properly before the court; but for claims that a rule exceeds statutory authority, La. R.S. 49:963(D) administrative-review prerequisites apply — remand to determine whether those prerequisites were met |
Key Cases Cited
- Schwegmann Bros. Giant Super Markets v. McCrory, 112 So.2d 606 (La. 1959) (framework allowing delegation for fact-finding but forbidding delegation of primary legislative choice)
- Krielow v. Louisiana Dep't of Agric. & Forestry, 125 So.3d 384 (La. 2013) (statutory constitutionality reviewed de novo; presumption of constitutionality)
- State v. Alfonso, 753 So.2d 156 (La. 1999) (articulation of the Schwegmann/three-prong test for permissible delegations)
- State v. All Pro Paint and Body Shop, Inc., 639 So.2d 707 (La. 1994) (delegation must preserve legislative policy choices and provide standards)
- Louisiana Chemical Association v. Department of Environmental Quality, 577 So.2d 230 (La. App. 1 Cir. 1991) (agency lacks jurisdiction to decide constitutionality of its own rules; scope of review under La. R.S. 49:963)