Shoul, L. v. Bureau of Driver Licensing, Aplt.
64 MAP 2015
| Pa. | Nov 22, 2017Background
- Appellee Lawrence S. Shoul challenged the revocation of his commercial driver’s license under 75 Pa.C.S. § 1611(e), raising substantive due process and Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual punishment) claims.
- The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania’s Majority rejected Shoul’s cruel and unusual punishment claim; Justice Wecht concurs in that result.
- The principal legal dispute addressed in the concurrence is the proper standard of substantive due process review under the Pennsylvania Constitution for legislation affecting privileges like driving and the right to pursue a profession.
- Historically, Pennsylvania decisions have cited Gambone, which instructs courts to assess whether police-power statutes are “reasonable” and have a “real and substantial relation” to their ends — language that invites searching judicial review.
- Justice Wecht argues this Gambone-derived test is overly intrusive (Lochner-esque) and contends Pennsylvania should adopt the more deferential federal rational-basis approach (as in Williamson) when reviewing ordinary economic or regulatory legislation.
- Although Justice Wecht agrees § 1611(e) survives review, he criticizes the Majority for relying on Gambone/Nixon’s less-deferential framework and urges abandonment of that precedent in favor of standard federal rational-basis deference.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper substantive due process standard under PA Constitution | Shoul argued statute lacked due process; impliedly urged more searching review given effect on occupation | Commonwealth defended statute as rationally related to legitimate state interest (deterring drug trafficking) and urged deferential review | Court applied rational-basis review and upheld § 1611(e); Justice Wecht concurs in result but urges adoption of federal-style deferential rational-basis test over Gambone/Nixon approach |
| Whether revocation of CDL implicates fundamental right | Shoul claimed impact on right to choose a profession | Commonwealth asserted driving is a privilege, not a fundamental right, and subject to regulation | Court treated driver’s license as a privilege; applied rational-basis analysis |
| Whether Gambone’s reasonableness test remains appropriate | Shoul relied on due process protections under state constitution to challenge statute’s reasonableness | Commonwealth relied on legislative police power and public-safety rationale | Justice Wecht criticizes Gambone as Lochner-era overreach and advocates deferring to legislature; Majority nonetheless upholds statute under rational-basis principles |
| Whether § 1611(e) is rationally related to legitimate state interest | Shoul argued statute was arbitrary/unduly oppressive | Commonwealth argued statute deters drug trafficking and protects public safety | Court found statute rationally related to deterring drug trafficking and valid under due process |
Key Cases Cited
- Plowman v. Pa. Dep't of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 635 A.2d 124 (Pa. 1993) (driver's license is a privilege subject to regulation)
- Gambone v. Commonwealth, 101 A.2d 634 (Pa. 1954) (articulates "reasonable" and "real and substantial relation" standard for police-power statutes)
- Williamson v. Lee Optical of Oklahoma Inc., 348 U.S. 483 (U.S. 1955) (adopts deferential rational-basis review for economic regulations)
- Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45 (U.S. 1905) (exemplar of non-deferential economic substantive-due-process review criticized as Lochner era)
- Nixon v. Commonwealth, 839 A.2d 277 (Pa. 2003) (applies a more restrictive Pennsylvania rational-basis test rooted in Gambone)
- Khan v. State Bd. of Auctioneer Exam'rs, 842 A.2d 936 (Pa. 2004) (profession regulation is subject to reasonable exercise of state power)
- Ferguson v. Skrupa, 372 U.S. 726 (U.S. 1963) (courts should not substitute their policy judgments for legislature on economic regulation)
- West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish, 300 U.S. 379 (U.S. 1937) (marks shift away from Lochner toward permitting reasonable regulation)
- Driscoll v. Corbett, 69 A.3d 197 (Pa. 2013) (applies deferential rational-basis review to retirement provision)
- Commonwealth v. Duda, 923 A.2d 1138 (Pa. 2007) (employs rational-basis test and permits courts to hypothesize legislative grounds)