Sonja Blake v. Debra Jossart
884 N.W.2d 484
Wis.2016Background
- In 2009 Wisconsin Act 76 amended child-care licensing law (Wis. Stat. § 48.685), creating lifetime and five-year bars to licensure/certification for people with certain convictions; subdivision (5)(br)5 imposes a lifetime ban for convictions for fraudulent activity as a participant in specified public-benefits programs.
- Sonja Blake, a state-certified home child-care provider, had a 1986 misdemeanor conviction for public-assistance fraud; Racine County revoked her certification after Act 76 because that conviction fell within § 48.685(5)(br)5.
- Blake sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, arguing the lifetime ban (facially and as applied) violated equal protection, substantive due process (liberty to practice), and created an impermissible irrebuttable presumption; lower courts and the court of appeals rejected her claims.
- The Wisconsin Supreme Court reviewed de novo; the majority applied rational-basis review because no suspect class or fundamental right was implicated and upheld the statute on face and as-applied grounds.
- The majority reasoned the classification (convictions for public-benefits fraud) is rationally related to legitimate legislative interests: preventing fraud in the Wisconsin Shares subsidy program and protecting public funds; irrebuttable-presumption precedents were distinguished by Weinberger v. Salfi.
- A dissent argued the classification system is arbitrary and disproportionate, shocks the conscience (substantive due process), may raise ex post facto concerns, and unfairly forecloses rehabilitation-based relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Equal protection (facial) | §48.685(5)(br)5 creates arbitrary, incoherent classes (lifetime vs. 5‑year vs. rebuttable) and thus denies equal protection | The relevant class is those convicted of public-benefits fraud; the lifetime ban rationally furthers preventing Wisconsin Shares fraud and protecting public funds | Upheld: statute passes rational-basis review facially; classification is rationally related to legitimate aims |
| Equal protection (as‑applied) | Application to Blake (30‑year‑old misdemeanor for $294) is irrational and discriminatory | Blake was treated consistently with similarly situated providers; no evidence of disparate treatment | Upheld: no as‑applied violation shown; treatment matched other providers revoked under the law |
| Substantive due process | Lifetime bar deprives liberty to pursue state‑regulated childcare and is not rationally related to fitness for the profession | No fundamental right implicated; even if a liberty interest exists, the ban rationally prevents fraud and deters abuse of the subsidy program | Upheld: rational-basis review satisfied; law does not irrationally infringe due process rights |
| Irrebuttable presumption doctrine | The statute creates a conclusive presumption of unfitness by denying any opportunity to show rehabilitation | Weinberger v. Salfi (and social-welfare precedents) distinguish irrebuttable‑presumption cases; benefits programs may use objective, prophylactic rules when individualized inquiry is impracticable | Upheld: not an unconstitutional irrebuttable presumption; classification of benefit eligibility is an objective criterion reasonably related to program goals |
Key Cases Cited
- Jamerson v. Dept. of Children & Families, 345 Wis. 2d 205 (Wis. 2013) (addressing permanent revocation under Act 76 and relevant procedural/adjudicative issues)
- Brown v. Dept. of Children & Families, 341 Wis. 2d 449 (Wis. Ct. App. 2012) (court of appeals decision applying rational‑basis review to §48.685 and upholding it)
- Aicher ex rel. LaBarge v. Wisconsin Patients Comp. Fund, 237 Wis. 2d 99 (Wis. 2000) (sets out the five‑part rational‑basis/classification test used in Wisconsin)
- Weinberger v. Salfi, 422 U.S. 749 (U.S. 1975) (distinguishes irrebuttable‑presumption line of cases and permits objective eligibility rules in social‑welfare programs)
- Schware v. Board of Bar Examiners, 353 U.S. 232 (U.S. 1957) (recognizes that denial of the right to practice a profession may raise due process concerns)
- Vlandis v. Kline, 412 U.S. 441 (U.S. 1973) (example of irrebuttable‑presumption jurisprudence cited and distinguished in analysis)