A federal judge has dismissed a Louisiana social worker’s lawsuit that alleged the Louisiana Department of Health’s regulatory regime unconstitutionally restricted her from providing life-skills instruction to special-needs children.
Judge Nannette Jolivette Brown of the Eastern District of Louisiana decided in an opinion last week that a regulation mandating a facility need review (FNR) prior to licensing a service provider did not violate the 14th Amendment, as was argued by plaintiff Ursula Newell-Davis.
Newell-Davis and her legal team alleged that the amendment does not allow for economic regulations such as the facility need review. The plaintiff argued that the state Department of Health’s denial of Newell-Davis’ FNR was unconstitutional and served a purpose of economic protectionism by shielding existing service providers from competition.
“We’re disappointed that because of excessive deference to the legislature, courts often turn a blind eye to injustices, like the one perpetuated against Ursula in Louisiana,” attorney Anastasia Boden, who represented Newell-Davis, told the Louisiana Record in an email. “Everyone has a constitutional right to enter an occupation on fair terms, including providing care to special-needs families.”
Boden, a senior attorney at the Pacific Legal Foundation, said she intends to appeal the ruling and to vindicate Newell-Davis’ rights. The New Orleans-based Pelican Institute for Public Policy worked with the foundation on the case.
The FNR provision requires applicants seeking to provide a home- or community-based service to first establish that there is an adequate demand for the service in a certain region, according to Brown’s opinion.
“The court finds that FNR’s purpose is a legitimate government interest,” Brown said in the 30-page opinion.
The judge said the Department of Health merited a wide latitude to implement its regulations. Without the FNR provision, she said, the department would have to perform more initial licensing surveys of unneeded providers, which would serve to limit its ability to protect consumer welfare.
“Even assuming FNR is an improvident method to achieve the state’s aims, that is an issue for the legislature, not this court, to rectify,” the opinion states.