Syllabus: A statute in the state Kansas make it a misdemeanor for any person participating in “debt adjusting”, with an exception to the practice of law. This statute does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause since states have the power to enact what they consider injurious practices in commercial and business affairs. The statute is valid as long as the laws do not conflict with specific constitutional rulings and federal law.
Procedural History: This case was filed by Skrupa doing business as “Credit Advisors” alleged that Skrupa engaged in “debt adjusting”. A three judge court heard evidence from Skrupa alleging the usefulness and desirability of the business as well as evidence by the state alleging that “debt advising” leads to grave abuses against distressed debtors, particularly in lower income brackets. The court reversed the decision and affirmed Kansas’s right to regulate debt adjusting. …show more content…
A lower court struck down the statue stating it was "unreasonable regulation of a lawful business”.
Issue: Was the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment violated by the Kansas ruling on debt adjusting?
Rule of Law: The courts ruled that the Kanas legislature was free to decide if legislation was needed to deal with the debt advising business. Arguments toward debt advising are properly addressed by the legislature and not the courts.
Reasoning/ Analysis: The Courts reversed the decision and affirmed that Kansas has the right to regulate debt advising. The unanimous decision held that the law was reasonable and was legislative and not judicial.
Holding(s) and the Court’s Order: The courts ruled that the three court judge decision was final. The Kansas legislature was free to decide if legislation was needed to deal with the debt advising
Procedural History: This case was filed by Skrupa doing business as “Credit Advisors” alleged that Skrupa engaged in “debt adjusting”. A three judge court heard evidence from Skrupa alleging the usefulness and desirability of the business as well as evidence by the state alleging that “debt advising” leads to grave abuses against distressed debtors, particularly in lower income brackets. The court reversed the decision and affirmed Kansas’s right to regulate debt adjusting. …show more content…
A lower court struck down the statue stating it was "unreasonable regulation of a lawful business”.
Issue: Was the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment violated by the Kansas ruling on debt adjusting?
Rule of Law: The courts ruled that the Kanas legislature was free to decide if legislation was needed to deal with the debt advising business. Arguments toward debt advising are properly addressed by the legislature and not the courts.
Reasoning/ Analysis: The Courts reversed the decision and affirmed that Kansas has the right to regulate debt advising. The unanimous decision held that the law was reasonable and was legislative and not judicial.
Holding(s) and the Court’s Order: The courts ruled that the three court judge decision was final. The Kansas legislature was free to decide if legislation was needed to deal with the debt advising