Wisconsin Supreme Court Upholds Anti-Combination Laws for Funeral Industry Under Rational Basis Review

Wisconsin Supreme Court Upholds Anti-Combination Laws for Funeral Industry Under Rational Basis Review

Introduction

The case of E. Glenn Porter, III and Highland Memorial Park, Inc. v. State of Wisconsin challenges the constitutionality of Wisconsin's anti-combination statutes governing the funeral industry. E. Glenn Porter, III, president of Highland Memorial Park, Inc., sought to expand his business by operating a funeral establishment alongside his cemetery operations. However, Wisconsin statutes §§ 157.067(2) and 445.12(6) prohibit such joint ownership or operation. Porter contended that these laws infringe upon his constitutional rights to equal protection and substantive due process.

Summary of the Judgment

The Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, upholding the constitutionality of the anti-combination laws. The majority concluded that these statutes are rationally related to legitimate government interests, including protecting consumers from higher prices and minimizing the manipulation of trust funds required by funeral and cemetery operators. Despite Porter's challenges, the court maintained that the laws do not violate equal protection or substantive due process under both Wisconsin and United States constitutions.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively references established precedents to support the court's stance:

  • Aicher ex rel. LaBarge v. Wisconsin Patients Comp. Fund: Established that rational basis scrutiny applies when no suspect class or fundamental right is involved.
  • Mayo v. Wisconsin Injured Patients & Families Compensation Fund: Provided a five-step rational basis analysis used in this case.
  • Ferdon ex rel. Petrucelli v. Wisconsin Patients Compensation Fund: Although overruled, it was referenced in discussions about rational basis "with teeth."
  • STATE v. MARTIN: Defined fundamental rights under the Wisconsin Constitution.
  • John F. Jelke Co. v. Emery: Addressed limitations on legislative power when economic protectionism is involved.

Legal Reasoning

The court employed the traditional rational basis test, as outlined in the Mayo case, which involves a five-step analysis to determine the law's constitutionality:

  1. Substantial Distinctions: The laws differentiate between cemetery operators and funeral directors, classes deemed substantially different due to their roles and regulatory requirements.
  2. Germane to Purpose: The statutes are linked to legitimate government interests such as consumer protection and financial integrity of trust funds.
  3. Not Based Solely on Existing Circumstances: The laws allow for the inclusion of additional members in the future, avoiding rigidity based on current market conditions.
  4. Equal Treatment: All members within each class are treated uniformly without favoritism.
  5. Reasonable Suggestion of Public Good: The unique vulnerabilities of consumers in the death care industry justify the need for such regulations.

Despite Porter's arguments for stricter scrutiny based on economic liberty, the majority found that rational basis was sufficient, deeming the statutes as a rational means to legitimate ends.

Impact

The affirmation of these anti-combination laws reinforces the state's authority to regulate industries to protect consumers and maintain financial safeguards. It sets a precedent for similar cases where economic regulations are challenged on constitutional grounds, emphasizing judicial deference to legislative judgment under rational basis review. Future cases involving economic liberty and industry regulation in Wisconsin will likely follow the analytical framework established in this judgment.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Rational Basis Review

Rational Basis Review is the most lenient form of judicial review used by courts to evaluate the constitutionality of laws. Under this standard, a law will be upheld if it is rationally related to a legitimate government interest, even if the connection is not the strongest possible.

Anti-Combination Laws

Anti-Combination Laws in Wisconsin prohibit the joint ownership or operation of a cemetery and a funeral home. The rationale is to prevent monopolistic practices and protect consumers from potential price manipulations and financial abuses.

Equal Protection Clause

The Equal Protection Clause prohibits states from denying any person within their jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. In this case, Porter argued that the anti-combination laws create unequal treatment between cemetery operators and funeral directors.

Conclusion

The Wisconsin Supreme Court's decision in Porter v. State underscores the judiciary's role in balancing economic regulations with constitutional protections. By upholding the anti-combination laws under rational basis scrutiny, the court affirmed the state's authority to regulate business practices in the interest of consumer protection and financial integrity. This ruling not only solidifies the legal framework for the funeral industry in Wisconsin but also serves as a reference point for future cases involving economic liberty and industry-specific regulations.

Case Details

Year: 2018
Court: STATE OF WISCONSIN IN SUPREME COURT

Judge(s)

SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON, J.

Attorney(S)

ATTORNEYS: For the plaintiffs-appellants-petitioners, there were briefs filed by Thomas C. Kamenick, Richard M. Esenberg, Michael Fischer, Clyde Taylor, and Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty, Milwaukee. There was an oral argument by Richard M. Esenberg. For the defendants-respondents, there was a brief filed by Ryan J. Walsh, chief deputy solicitor general, with whom on the brief were Brad D. Schimel, attorney general, and Sopen B. Shah, deputy solicitor general. There was an oral argument by Ryan J. Walsh, chief deputy solicitor general. An amicus curiae brief was filed on behalf of Institute for Justice by Lee U. McGrath, Anthony B. Sanders, and Institute for Justice, Minneapolis, Minnesota, with whom on the brief were Erica Smith and Institute for Justice, Arlington, Virginia.

Comments