Cherenzia v. Lynch

• Decision Date: 15 March 2004
• Docket Number: No. 2002-613-Appeal.,2002-613-Appeal.
• Citation: 847 A.2d 818
• Parties: Robert CHERENZIA et al. v. Patrick LYNCH, in his Official Capacity as Attorney General of the State of Rhode Island.
• Court: Rhode Island Supreme Court

847 A.2d 818

Robert CHERENZIA et al. v. Patrick LYNCH, in his Official Capacity as Attorney General of the State of Rhode Island.¹

No. 2002-613-Appeal.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

March 15, 2004.

Keith B. Kyle, Providence, for Plaintiff. Michael W. Field, for Defendant.

Present: WILLIAMS, C.J., FLANDERS, GOLDBERG, FLAHERTY, and SUTTELL, JJ.

OPINION

FLANDERS, Justice.

This is a fish story of a legal sort. A state statute bars any person from using a self-contained underwater breathing apparatus (SCUBA) to harvest shellfish at four named coastal ponds in the state. G.L. 1956 § 20-6-30, as enacted by P.L.2001, ch. 412, § 1. Dangling their constitutionally protected "rights of fishery, and the privileges of the shore," R.I. Const., art. 1, sec. 17, before a Superior Court motion justice, the named plaintiffs — all of whom were commercial fishermen (hereinafter, the fishermen) — tried to hook this anti-SCUBA statute on various state constitutional provisions. After reviewing the parties' summary-judgment papers and hearing their arguments, a Superior Court motion justice swallowed their bait and declared the law to be unconstitutional. The defendant, who is the Attorney General of the State of Rhode Island (state), has appealed from that judgment.

The state argues that § 20-6-30 is a constitutionally valid exercise of the General Assembly's plenary power to regulate the state's fishing industry. The fishermen, however, contend that the motion justice correctly ruled that the General Assembly lacked any reasonable basis for depriving SCUBA divers of their occupation and that the provisions of § 20-6-30 therefore were unconstitutional. For the reasons cast in this opinion, we conclude that the motion justice erred in granting plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, that the provisions of § 20-6-30 are consistent with the fishermen's "rights of fishery, and the privileges of the shore" that are set forth in art. 1, sec. 17, of the Rhode Island Constitution (constitution), and that this law does not otherwise violate the fishermen's rights under the due-process and equal-protection clauses of the constitution. Accordingly, convinced that the statute in question does not deprive these fishermen of their livelihood, unreasonably restrain their "rights of fishery," or otherwise violate their constitutional rights, we now reverse, vacate the judgment for the fishermen, and throw this statute back into the legal waters of this state so that it can sink or swim on its own merits as a legislated public policy.

Facts and Travel

The fishermen began this action by filing a complaint challenging the constitutionality of § 20-6-40.² As previously noted, this statute prohibits any person from harvesting shellfish using a SCUBA at four coastal ponds: Green Hill Pond, Quonochontaug Pond, Charlestown Pond, and Potter Pond. Before the enactment of § 20-6-30 in 2001, see P.L.2001, ch. 412, § 1, the fishermen were using SCUBA to harvest shellfish from Potter Pond in South Kingstown. They then sold the shellfish to various wholesalers for resale to the public.

During the years 2000 and 2001, residents in and around Potter Pond noticed a decline in their ability to harvest shellfish for their own consumption and recreational use. The residents also believed that the SCUBA divers who were plying their trade in this area failed to use proper safety measures while fishing, interfered with the residents' navigation of the pond, trespassed on their private property, and failed to comply with the quantity limits set by the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management (DEM), Division of Fish and Wildlife (DFW). Their concerns escalated when residents discovered that DFW was considering rescinding its previous regulation barring SCUBA shellfishing at three of the four ponds later named in § 20-6-30 (all except Potter Pond) and opening other salt ponds in the area to SCUBA divers who wanted to harvest shellfish.³ Ultimately, at least in partial response to the local residents' concerns, the General Assembly enacted § 20-6-30, prohibiting SCUBA divers from harvesting shellfish at these four specified coastal ponds. But it did not restrict the harvesting of shellfish in these areas by any other fishing method, nor did it restrict SCUBA shellfishing in any other area of the state.

In their legal memorandum supporting their motion for summary judgment, the fishermen argued that the statutory bar on harvesting shellfish using SCUBA was not rationally related to a legitimate state interest because it was not based on bona fide concerns about resource sustainability or about public-health risks at the affected ponds. If resource sustainability were the goal, the fishermen argued, then the state would have precluded all methods for harvesting shellfish, not just SCUBA harvesting. According to their expert in biological oceanography, certain shellfish in this area spawn prolifically, and harvesting poses no danger to their population — as long as those who are fishing there observe the size and catch limitations. The fishermen also cited a DEM report as evidence that no resource-sustainability issues existed to justify this legislation. Lastly, they noted the quantity and daily catch limits and suggested that these limitations already protected any legitimate concerns about sustaining this natural resource.

In response, the state acknowledged that § 20-6-30 was a product of legislative compromise between the conflicting interests of two groups: (1) local residents, who alleged that SCUBA divers not only had trespassed on their property — leaving a depleted shellfish stock for recreational fishermen — but also, by their presence in the water, created a safety problem for boaters on these ponds; and (2) commercial SCUBA divers, who vied for the right to continue harvesting shellfish. Thus, the state argued, it was the General Assembly's duty to strike a compromise between these competing claimants. Furthermore, the state maintained that economic and environmental-protection legislation such as this enjoys a presumption of constitutional validity, and that, if it so chooses, the General Assembly has plenary authority to impose stringent regulations on the fishing industry. Moreover, the state suggested that the statutory classification of SCUBA divers for adverse treatment in these limited fishing areas did not violate their equal-protection or due-process rights under the constitution.

In a bench decision comprising four sentences, the motion justice ruled that the General Assembly did not have a rational basis for "depriving those individuals [SCUBA-diving fishermen] of their occupation" and that the statute was thus unconstitutional. The court entered an order and a judgment granting the fishermen's motion for summary judgment and denying the state's cross-motion for summary judgment. The state filed a timely appeal.

On appeal, the fishermen submit that the statute violates their "rights of fishery," as guaranteed by art. 1, sec. 17, of the Rhode Island Constitution. In addition, they contend that § 20-6-30 arbitrarily discriminates against a single class of fishermen — those using SCUBA — in violation of art. 1, sec. 17. They also maintain that there is no legitimate state interest in prohibiting SCUBA shellfishing in the designated coastal ponds because such fishing does not implicate resource sustainability or public-health concerns. Thus, they argue, § 20-6-30 is an arbitrary and unreasonable exercise of legislative power because it advances no identifiable legitimate state interest, and, therefore, it violates the due-process and equal-protection provisions of art. 1, sec. 2, of the constitution.

The state counters that the statute enjoys a presumption of validity and that the fishermen have failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the statute is unconstitutional. Additionally, the state contends, the statute is constitutionally valid because the General Assembly has plenary power to regulate the fishing industry. The state submits that the statute passes muster under an equal-protection analysis using the minimal-scrutiny test that applies to laws such as this because it merely regulates one limited aspect of the state's economy. Lastly, the state argues, the provisions of the statute neither "shock[] the conscience" nor implicate a fundamental right under our constitution; therefore, the fishermen's substantive due-process claims must fail.

Analysis

We review a motion justice's grant of summary judgment on a de novo basis. DiBattista v. State, 808 A.2d 1081, 1085 (R.I.2002). This Court frequently has held that the power of the General Assembly to make and enact laws is broad and plenary, "save for the textual limitations * * * that are specified in the Federal or State Constitutions." City of Pawtucket v. Sundlun, 662 A.2d 40, 44 (R.I. 1995) (citing Kass v. Retirement Board of the Employees' Retirement System of Rhode Island, 567 A.2d 358, 360 (R.I. 1989)

). Because of the broad legislative power of the General Assembly, we presume the constitutional validity of legislative enactments. E.g., Sundlun, 662 A.2d at 45; In re Advisory Opinion to the Governor, Rhode Island Depositors Economic Protection Corp. v. Brown, 659 A.2d 95, 100 (R.I.1995); Kennedy v. State, 654 A.2d 708, 712 (R.I.1995); Kass, 567 A.2d at 360; In re Advisory Opinion to the House of Representatives, 485 A.2d 550, 552 (R.I. 1984). In passing on the constitutionality of a statute, the Court exercises its power to do so "with the greatest possible caution." Gorham v. Robinson, 57 R.I. 1, 7, 186 A. 832, 837 (1936). To be deemed unconstitutional, a statute must "palpably and unmistakably be characterized as an excess of legislative power." Sundlun, 662 A.2d at 44-45. Unless the party challenging the constitutionality of a statute can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the act violates a specific provision of the constitution or the United...