A Fare Deal: The Reasonable Regulation of Ridesharing

Note | 104 KY. L. J. ONLINE 17 | Sept. 28, 2015

Dylan Merrill[1]

Introduction

On New Year’s Eve 2013, Sayad Muzzafar was driving for the ridesharing company Uber when he struck a mother and her two children while they were crossing the street. That night, one of the children, a six year-old girl, died from her injuries.[2] The Liu family later sued the company, but Uber distanced itself from the accident, arguing it was not liable because Mr. Muzzafar did not have an Uber passenger in his vehicle when he struck the pedestrians.[3] At the time of the accident, policymakers had not implemented regulations for the new rideshare industry, further frustrating the goal of determining who in fact is liable in these circumstances.[4]This sad situation is only one example of how legal grey areas are cloaking ridesharing in uncertainty, creating a dire need for legal and regulatory certainty. However, since the law has historically struggled to keep pace with technological advances, these kinds of legal grey areas and the problems they pose are not anything new. For example, in 1863, the Supreme Court of the United States was faced with the issue of how to regulate steam engines and railroads according to laws that were passed long before the inventions became ubiquitous.[5] Justice Samuel Freeman Miller, writing for the majority, marveled at the complexity of bringing new technologies into the fold:Perhaps the most remarkable invention of modern times, in the influence which it has had, and is yet to have, on the affairs of the world . . . is the railroad system. It is not strange, then, that when we are called to construe a statute relating to this class of subjects, passed before a steam engine or railroad was thought of . . . we should be met by difficulties of the gravest character.[6]Implicit in the Court’s opinion is an insight into the dilemma posed by the creation of transformative technologies. On one hand, technological innovations carry an enormous promise: the potential to transform society for the better. At the same time, even the most promising inventions can bring with them serious threats to the safety of the community. Therefore, there is danger in not regulating a new technology to ensure its safe operation, just as there is danger in regulating it so much that the regulation restricts economic growth.While this language was written decades before the invention of the automobile, the words still ring true today. In the ridesharing context, there are two weighty public policy interests at play. First and foremost, as demonstrated above, there are legitimate public safety concerns inherent in a transportation service like ridesharing. Yet, this must be viewed through an economic lens as well. After all, ridesharing companies offer an innovative service that helps distribute scarce resources by providing a low-cost alternative to traditional taxis. This service benefits customers, and it also creates jobs. Therefore, the fairest and most effective regulatory scheme will carefully balance these two competing policy objectives.This balancing, however, is not easily done. Should ridesharing companies like Uber and Lyft be subject to the same standards as taxicab companies, such as Yellow Cab? How can regulators and legislators put in place rules that promote public safety without undermining the competitive advantage enjoyed by ridesharing? This Note proposes an answer to these difficult questions. Part I asks the question of whether ridesharing should be regulated, and submits that doing so would not only better protect the public, but also shore up the ridesharing business model. Part II lays out the regulatory landscape of ridesharing, focusing on the pressing issue of insurance liability. Ultimately, Part III proposes a roadmap for regulating ridesharing services—one that is fair, practical, and tailored to fit the needs of ridesharing companies, its customers, and the general public.

I. The Need for Ridesharing Regulation

Ridesharing closely resembles the services provided by traditional taxicab companies, although there are important distinctions between the two services. At its most basic, the ridesharing routine is the same as with taxicabs: a customer requests a ride, the driver takes the customer to the destination, and the customer pays for the ride.[7] However, unlike traditional cab services, ridesharing companies do not dispatch drivers, nor do they own the vehicles used to give rides.[8] Furthermore, companies like Uber and Lyft do not employ their drivers or dictate their work schedules, allowing drivers to choose to provide rides as frequently or infrequently as they wish.[9] In essence, these companies self-identify as smartphone application developers that merely license their technology to independent drivers.[10]But the question remains as to whether ridesharing poses risks to consumers and the general public, and if so, how to ensure regulation does not restrict the economic potential of ridesharing. To determine whether ridesharing companies should be regulated, it is useful to examine the impact of such companies, both positive and negative. The foremost benefit such companies provide is a dependable, convenient, and low-cost alternative to traditional taxicabs.[11] Although the competitive advantage of ridesharing has led, at least in part, to a decline in the taxicab industry, ridesharing undeniably gives consumers access to more transportation options.[12] Furthermore, ridesharing has the potential to benefit the general public by combatting widespread transportation and environmental issues such as traffic congestion and pollution.[13]But these economic and social improvements must be considered in light of the potentially harmful effect ridesharing could have on consumers and the general public.[14] Several public policy problems stem from the regulation—or lack thereof—of ridesharing companies, including but not limited to taxation, worker’s rights, licensing, background checks, distracted driving and other safety issues.[15] But perhaps the most pressing issue concerns insurance coverage. There is significant ambiguity regarding who is liable when an accident occurs—the driver or the ridesharing company.[16] If companies like Uber and Lyft are merely smartphone application providers and truly have an indirect involvement in the provision of ridesharing, then their liability for their drivers’ accidents should be minimal.[17] Jurisdictions that have not regulated ridesharing tacitly agree with this argument by allowing ridesharing companies to determine how much insurance—if any—they wish to provide for their drivers. The result is that ridesharing drivers’ liability in the event of an accident depends largely on the whims of their affiliated ridesharing company rather than a standardized and enforceable framework.This regulatory vacuum is dangerous, particularly in the insurance context. A ridesharing company’s commercial insurance covers a driver when the driver’s smartphone application is turned on and there is a customer in the vehicle.[18] However, its insurance does not cover a driver when the application is turned off.[19] In that situation, ridesharing companies argue that the driver is supposed to be covered by his or her personal car insurance.[20] Insurance providers, however, tend to disagree.[21] They consider ridesharing drivers to be involved in commercial activity and thus refuse to let ridesharing drivers use their personal insurance to cover accidents that happen on the job.[22] Insurers have clearly stated that “vehicles used for transporting passengers for a charge” are not covered by personal car insurance policies.[23] Consequently, some insurance providers have actually canceled the policies of customers who drive for Uber and Lyft.[24] And in some instances, insurers have even denied insurance applications based on an applicant’s intent to drive for a ridesharing company.[25] Thus, although ridesharing companies maintain that their drivers are covered by personal car insurance when their smart phone application is turned off, that is often not true.Furthermore, ridesharing drivers run the risk of liability even when their smartphone application is activated.[26] As noted above, drivers are covered by commercial insurance when their smart phone application is on and they are driving customers, but they are not covered by the commercial policy when the application is on and they are not carrying any passengers.[27] Therefore, since personal car insurance does not cover such commercial activity, drivers who are merely seeking customers run the risk of falling into an “insurance gap” in the event of an accident. Such was the case of Syad Muzzafar, the Uber driver who struck and killed Sophia Liu in San Francisco.[28] At the time, the driver was in between passengers but had not yet picked up another customer.[29] As a result, the driver’s insurance policy only provided a maximum of $15,000 to the victim’s family.[30] The company denied any liability for the accident, stating that “[t]he driver in question was not providing services on the Uber system during the time of the accident.”[31] This is only one example of the dire need for insurance standards in the ridesharing industry.Instituting such standards would protect drivers, passengers, and the general public as a whole, and it also has the potential to actually improve the bottom line of ridesharing businesses like Uber and Lyft. The enactment of ridesharing standards will provide regulatory certainty for ridesharing companies, allowing them to continue to grow their companies with less fear of how the government might intervene in the future.[32] This incentive had been demonstrated when ridesharing companies welcome the opportunity to work with local governments toward the regulation of their industry.[33] In turn, such third-party oversight will in theory inspire greater consumer confidence in the safety of ridesharing services.[34] Therefore, the prospect of a win-win-win outcome will incentivize regulators to promptly put in place standards that protect ridesharing companies and those affected by them.

II. Potential Regulatory Frameworks: California and Colorado Case Studies

The law has struggled to keep pace with rapid advance of the ridesharing economy. One reason for this is ridesharing is difficult to regulate, as it exists in a legal gray area.[35] As mentioned above, ridesharing providers are situated somewhere between traditional taxicab companies and smartphone application developers, and thus they have tended to disregard existing laws that are not specifically tailored to ridesharing.[36] Moreover, ridesharing services defy categorization into traditional regulatory frameworks, preventing many governments from developing tailored policy approaches to ridesharing.[37]Some states and municipalities, nevertheless, have begun regulating ridesharing companies. Although Congress has yet to legislate on the issue, some state and local governments have passed legislation or promulgated rules regarding services like Uber and Lyft.[38] The approaches differ greatly. For instance, some jurisdictions have banned most ridesharing services outright.[39] In the Commonwealth of Virginia, for example, ridesharing companies until recently were subject to civil penalties if they continued operating there.[40] In doing so, the state was adhering to its law that requires state authorization for passenger vehicles that are for-hire and it issued cease-and-desist orders to ridesharing companies that continued operations in Virginia.[41] The Department of Motor Vehicles found that, since drivers for companies like Uber get compensation for their services, they are more than just casual carpoolers.[42] Similarly, other state and local governments have suspended the operation of ridesharing services while they devise an appropriate regulatory framework.[43] Several states on the forefront, however, have taken the initiative and passed legislation regulating ridesharing services.[44]

A. California

In 2013, California became the first jurisdiction to legalize ridesharing.[45] Before regulations were put in place, the policy of the California Public Utilities Commission ("CPUC") was to issue fines and cease-and-desist letters to ridesharing companies, but it later allowed the companies to operate on an interim basis while draft regulations were considered.[46] The CPUC ruled that ridesharing services did not accord with any of the three existing regulatory categories: taxicab companies, charter-party carrier services (i.e., livery vehicles), or passenger-stage companies (e.g., airport shuttles).[47] Nevertheless, standards regulating the ridesharing industry were put in place, but they were promulgated under a completely new classification of transportation services called “Transportation Network Companies” (or “TNCs”).[48] According to the CPUC, this new category of services consists of “companies that provide prearranged transportation services for compensation using an online-enabled application (app) or platform to connect passengers with drivers using their personal vehicles.”[49] Ridesharing companies like Uber and Lyft fall under this definition, but traditional taxis and casual carpoolers do not.[50]Under California law, TNCs are subject to five key insurance-related provisions in the new regulations.[51] Perhaps the most important is the requirement that ridesharing companies provide insurance from the moment a driver turns on his or her smartphone application.[52] As noted above, this cuts against the general practice of ridesharing companies, which is to cover their drivers with commercial insurance only when their application is in use and there are passengers in the car.[53] In addition to being responsible for closing this insurance gap, TNCs are required to provide, at a minimum, $1 million in coverage.[54] This requirement lasts from the time a customer is picked up until the passenger has left the vehicle.[55] Drivers for TNCs, however, are also subject to additional insurance regulations. Drivers are responsible for maintaining primary commercial liability insurance coverage of at least $50,000 per person and $100,000 per occurrence of death and personal injury, as well as $30,000 for property damage.[56] In addition, drivers are also required to carry proof of their personal and commercial insurance coverage, and they must be at least twenty-one years of age a year or more of driving experience.[57] Lastly, the regulations call for the expedited review of new insurance policies that are tailored to the needs of TNC drivers.[58] Enforcement of these new regulations was delayed for one year and became subject to review by the CPUC after they were in place for the first year.[59] Although not all ridesharing companies were initially supportive of such regulations, the tide has begun to turn.[60] Notably, ridesharing companies have formed a coalition with insurance providers and government regulators, in order to collaborate on how to best comply with the new ridesharing rules.[61]

B. Colorado

Additionally, the State of Colorado has passed legislation enacting insurance regulations for ridesharing companies.[62] Like the California rules, the legislation puts in place new provisions that are unique to ridesharing companies and also classifies the provisions as “Transportation Network Companies.”[63] The Colorado legislation, however, defined TNCs differently than California’s regulations. Under the Colorado statute, a TNC is a company that “uses a digital network to connect riders to transportation network company drivers for the purpose of providing transportation” and “does not provide taxi service, transportation service arranged through a transportation broker, ridesharing arrangements, . . . or any transportation service over fixed routes at regular intervals.”[64] This definition nevertheless still subjects companies like Uber and Lyft to TNC rules and regulations. At the same time, the legislation exempts TNCs from the regulations imposed on common carriers, contract carriers, and motor carriers.[65] TNCs are also exempt from much of the Colorado Public Utilities Commission’s authority, including its ability to regulate rates.[66] The new legislation, however, does put in place a key regulation: it closes the insurance gap by requiring TNCs to provide commercial insurance coverage once the application is turned on, regardless of whether the driver is carrying a passenger.[67] This emphasis on commercial insurance rather than the driver’s personal policy is notable because, absent such a requirement, insurers would have had to raise rates for all vehicle policies in the state, regardless of whether they were used for ridesharing services.[68]Like California, Colorado requires TNCs to provide a minimum of $1 million in liability coverage.[69] Notably, Uber voluntarily provides $1 million in liability coverage beginning when a driver accepts a trip request.[70] Colorado’s legislation, however, goes further. It requires such coverage whenever the smartphone application is activated, irrespective of whether the driver has been matched with a passenger or is in route to pick one up.[71] This covers a larger portion of the insurance gap than either California’s insurance requirement or Uber’s voluntary commitment, neither of which mandate liability coverage until a passenger is assigned to the driver.[72] In addition, in Colorado, personal insurance policies must cover at least $50,000 per person and $100,000 per occurrence of death and personal injury, as well as $30,000 for property damage.[73] This amount, however, will be the subject of a required state agency study and could be increased in the future.[74] The ridesharing industry reaction to the passage of the legislation was overwhelmingly positive.[75]Although there are differences between California and Colorado’s insurance regulations, both have reclassified ridesharing as a wholly unique service, treating it differently from traditional taxicab providers. Furthermore, both regulatory frameworks agree that ridesharing companies should be responsible for closing the insurance gap. This consensus should not be overlooked as policymakers in other jurisdictions contemplate putting in place ridesharing regulations.

III. Which Regulations Work Best For Ridesharing?

As discussed above, the need for ridesharing standards is clear. Regulation not only protects drivers, passengers, and the general public as a whole, but it also has the potential to actually help the bottom line of ridesharing companies. The more difficult determination is what these regulations should look like.Effective regulation requires legally classifying ridesharing companies as their own unique category of transportation. As understood by states like California and Colorado, it does not make sense to try to regulate ridesharing drivers as if they were taxicabs or livery vehicles.[76] This square-peg-round-hole problem is best solved by developing a completely new classification (i.e., “Transportation Network Companies”) for ridesharing. The definition of a TNC should emphasize that TNCs are neither taxicab companies nor involved in traditional/informal ridesharing, as the Colorado legislature has specifically stated.[77]Furthermore, regulators must close the insurance gap for ridesharing drivers. The surest way of doing so entails, for one, requiring TNCs to provide a minimum amount of $1 million in liability coverage for their drivers.[78] Crucially, this coverage should mirror Colorado’s framework and kick in whenever the smartphone application is activated, irrespective of whether the driver has been matched with a passenger or is in route to pick one up. This will prevent drivers from having to shoulder too much financial risk. Furthermore, by placing more responsibility on TNCs (and therefore less on drivers’ personal policies), it prevents insurers from raising rates for all vehicle policies, regardless of whether they were used for ridesharing services.[79] That said, this arrangement does not work without baseline requirements for ridesharing drivers’ personal insurance policies. State and local governments should follow California’s example and hold drivers responsible for maintaining substantial primary liability insurance coverage.[80] Regulators can help ridesharing drivers comply with this requirement by ensuring expedited review of new insurance policies that are tailored to the needs of TNC drivers.[81] In sum, these insurance fixes will help create a more even distribution of financial risk among ridesharing companies and their drivers. More importantly, these regulations will help ensure that claimants in ridesharing-related actions have a better chance of obtaining full recovery.

IV. Conclusion

By expanding consumer choice and providing an efficient, dependable, and inexpensive alternative to other modes of transportation, ridesharing companies provide a net-benefit to society. At the same time, there are nevertheless dangers that come along with the rise of ridesharing. Governments, then, should not only put in place new ridesharing standards, but also ensure that such regulation does not come at the expense of the viability of the industry. To help achieve this goal, legislators and regulators should focus their efforts on solving pressing policy problems. As a first step, the ridesharing should be classified as a unique service and treated differently than traditional taxicab companies. Other jurisdictions should strongly consider California’s definition of Transportation Network Companies: companies “that provide[] prearranged transportation services for compensation using an online-enabled application (app) or platform to connect passengers with drivers using their personal vehicles.”[82] Furthermore, minimum insurance coverage baselines for companies and their drivers will provide a stronger safety net for those involved in ridesharing-related accidents. Specifically, states should require TNCs to provide at least $1 million in liability coverage for their drivers, and drivers should also need substantial primary liability insurance coverage—at least $50,000 per person and $100,000 per occurrence of death and personal injury. Lastly, ridesharing companies must be required to provide insurance coverage from the moment the smartphone application is turned on so that drivers and accident victims have much fuller legal and financial protection in the event of an accident. With these vital protections in place, we can help the ridesharing industry continue to provide its innovative services while also ensuring they shoulder a fair share of the risk they create. Legislators and policymakers would be wise to adopt this approach as a first—but crucial—step toward the reasonable regulation of ridesharing.

---

[1] J.D. expected, May 2016, University of Kentucky College of Law.

[2] Josh Constine, Uber’s Denial of Liability in Girl’s Death Raises Accident Accountability Question, TechCrunch (Jan. 2, 2014), http://techcrunch.com/2014/01/02/should-car-services-provide-insurance-whenever-their-driver-app-is-open/.

[3] Patrick Hoge, California May Expand Insurance Rules for Uber, Lyft et al., San Francisco Business Times (Mar. 25, 2014, 10:38 AM), http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/blog/2014/03/california-insurance-rules-uber-lyft.html?page=all.

[4] Id.

[5] Bridge Proprietors v. Hoboken Co., 68 U.S. 116, 118 (1864).

[6] Id. at 146-47.

[7] Odette Yousef, Ridesharing vs. Taxicabs: The Inside Story, WBEZ (June 5, 2014), http://www.wbez.org/news/rideshare-vs-taxicabs-inside-story-110296.

[8] Id.

[9] Id.

[10] Adam Cecilon, The Insurance Secret that Uber Doesn’t Want You to Know, PolicyGenius Blog (Oct. 8, 2014), http://www.policygenius.com/blog/insurance-secret-uber-doesnt-want-know/.

[11] Peter Schworm, Passengers in the Middle of Ride-sharing Dispute, Boston Globe (Dec. 2, 2014), http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2014/12/02/city-council-hearing-discuss-potential-uber-lyft-regulation/a02o5C5DmnSc2LOarCpC9N/story.html.

[12] See, e.g., Megan Garber, After Uber, San Francisco Has Seen a 65% Decline in Cab Use, The Atlantic (Sept. 17, 2014), http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/09/what-uber-is-doing-to-cabs-in-san-francisco-in-1-crazy-chart/380378/.

[13] The Power of Connection: Peer-to-Peer Businesses: Hearing Before H. Comm. On Small Bus., 113th Cong. 6 (2014) (“Th[e] adoption of ride-sharing has the potential to produce large-scale public benefits, including easing traffic congestion and the strain on existing infrastructure, reducing pollution, and fostering a sense of community, all while providing car owners an opportunity to offset the cost of car ownership.”). These benefits are generated simply by people riding together who would otherwise be in separate vehicles. But ridesharing companies also augment these benefits, especially in the context of traffic congestion. For example, Uber developed a smartphone application that draws on a wealth of traffic-related data to help drivers find the most efficient route. Ryan Lawler, Uber Adds Turn-By-Turn Directions to Its Driver App, TechCrunch (Aug. 13, 2014), http://techcrunch.com/2014/08/13/uber-turn-by-turn-directions/.

[14] See generally Molly Cohen & Corey Zehngebot, What’s Old Becomes New: Regulating the Sharing Economy, 58 Boston Bar J. 34 (2014).

[15] Id.; Cecilon, supra note 10.

[16] Cecilon, supra note 10.

[17] Id.

[18] See, e.g., Nairi Hourdajian, Insurance for UberX with Ridesharing, Uber Blog (Feb. 10, 2014), http://blog.uber.com/ridesharinginsurance (detailing Uber’s insurance policy).

[19] Id.

[20] Id.

[21] Cecilon, supra note 10.

[22] Id.

[23] Jon Brooks, Confusion Over Insurance For “Ride-Sharing” Drivers, KQED.org: News Fix (Nov. 19. 2013), http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/11/14/who-pays-when-ride-share-driver-crashes.

[24] Jon Brooks, How Many Ride-Share Drivers Are Hiding Status From Insurers?, KQED.org: News Fix (Jan. 21, 2014), http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2014/01/20/ride-sharing-insurance-lyft-uberx-sidecar/.

[25] Id.

[26] Cecilon, supra note 10.

[27] Id.

[28] Marcus Wohlsen, Why Uber’s Fate Could Hinge on This Tragic Accident, Wired.com (Jan. 29, 2014, 6:30 AM), http://wired.com/2014/01/uber-wrongful-death. Uber and Sophia Liu’s family have since settled the lawsuit. Zach Miners, Uber Settles Suit over Girl Killed by Driver, PC World (July 14, 2015, 5:50 PM), http://www.pcworld.com/article/2948492/uber-settles-suit-over-girl-killed-by-driver.html.

[29] Id.

[30] Alexa Vaughn, Uber, Lyft Expanding Driver Insurance Coverage, Seattle Times (Mar. 14, 2014, 3:00 AM), http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2023125386_uberinsurancexml.html.

[31] Wohlson, supra note 28.

[32] The Power of Connection: Peer-to-Peer Businesses, supra note 13 at 6.

[33] Johana Bhuiyan, Here Is Where Uber and Lyft Are Facing Regulation Battles in the United States, BuzzFeed, (Dec. 15, 2014, 4:29 PM), http://www.buzzfeed.com/johanabhuiyan/here-is-where-uber-and-lyft-are-facing-regulation-battles-in#.ftEkba0vVA.

[34] Deven R. Desai, The New Steam: On Digitization, Decentralization, and Disruption, 65 Hastings L.J. 1469, 1477-80 (2013).

[35] Cohen & Zehngebot, supra note 14.

[36] Desai, supra note 34, at 1478.

[37] Id.

[38] Curtis Skinner, New Orleans Authorizes Uber—But Not UberX, Business Insider (Sept. 5, 2014, 8:02 AM), http://www.businessinsider.com/r-new-orleans-council-clears-uber-others-to-offer-luxury-online-taxi-service-2014-9.

[39] Sam Frizell, 5 Places Where Uber Is Fighting for Its Life Right Now, Time.com (Dec. 8, 2014), http://time.com/3623241/uber-battles (discussing locales which have banned or severely constrained Uber operations, including Portland, Oregon, and the State of Nevada).

[40] Paul Frisman, Uber's On-demand Car Service, Conn. Office of Legislative Research 4 (June 19, 2014), http://cga.ct.gov/2014/rpt/pdf/2014-R-0173.pdf (discussing different state approaches, including Virginia). Virginia legalized ridesharing earlier this year. Luz Lazo, Uber and Lyft Are Now Legal in Virginia, Washington Post (Feb. 18, 2015), http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/dr-gridlock/wp/2015/02/18/uber-and-lyft-are-now-legal-in-virginia/.

[41] Paul Frisman, Uber's On-demand Car Service, Conn. Office of Legislative Research 4 (June 19, 2014), http://cga.ct.gov/2014/rpt/pdf/2014-R-0173.pdf; Lazo, supra note 40.

[42] Paul Frisman, Uber's On-demand Car Service, Conn. Office of Legislative Research 4 (June 19, 2014), http://cga.ct.gov/2014/rpt/pdf/2014-R-0173.pdf.

[43] Paul Frisman, Uber's On-demand Car Service, Conn. Office of Legislative Research 4 (June 19, 2014), http://cga.ct.gov/2014/rpt/pdf/2014-R-0173.pdf; Lazo, supra note 40.

[44] Josh Richman, Uber, Lyft, Sidecar: New Insurance Requirements Approved by California Legislature (Aug. 28, 2014, 6:55 PM PDT), http://www.mercurynews.com/california/ci_26428057/california-senate-approves-new-insurance-requirements-uber-lyft; Andy Vuong, Colorado First to Authorize Lyft and Uber’s Ridesharing Services, Denver Post (June 5, 2014, 5:06:32 PM MDT), http://www.denverpost.com/business/ci_25907057/colorado-first-authorize-lyft-and-ubers-ridesharing-services?source=infinite.

[45] Tomio Geron, California Becomes First State to Regulate Ridesharing Services Lyft, Sidecar, Uber, Forbes (Sept. 19, 2013, 3:40 PM), http://www.forbes.com/sites/tomiogeron/2013/09/19/california-becomes-first-state-to-regulate-ridesharing-services-lyft-sidecar-uberx/.

[46] Id.

[47] Decision 13-09-045 Adopting Rules and Regulations to Protect Safety While Allowing New Entrants to the Transportation Industry, Cal. Pub. Utilities Comm’n 11 (Sept. 23, 2013), http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PublishedDocs/Published/G000/M077/K192/77192335.PDF.

[48] Geron, supra note 45.

[49] Press Release, California Public Utilities Commission, CPUC Establishes Rules For Transportation Network Companies (Sept. 19, 2013), http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PublishedDocs/Published/G000/M077/K132/77132276.PDF.

[50] Geron, supra note 45.

[51] Assemb. B. 2293, 2013-2014 Assemb., Reg. Sess. (Cal. 2014), available at http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140AB2293.

[52] See id.

[54] Id.

[55] Id.

[56] Assemb. 2293 §5433(c)(1), 2013-2014 Assemb., Reg. Sess. (Cal. 2014), available at http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140AB2293.

[57] Decision 13-09-045 Adopting Rules and Regulations to Protect Safety While Allowing New Entrants to the Transportation Industry, Cal. Pub. Utilities Comm’n 26-27 (Sept. 23, 2013), http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PublishedDocs/Published/G000/M077/K192/77192335.PDF.

[58] Id. § 5438.

[59] Geron, supra note 45.

[60] California Welcomes Insurance Coalition for Ride Sharing, Uber Joins In, GovTech.com, (Feb. 10, 2014), http://www.govtech.com/state/California-Welcomes-Insurance-Coalition-for-Ride-Sharing-Uber-Joins-In.html.

[61] Id.

[62] S.B. 14-125, 69th Gen. Assemb., Reg. Sess. (Colo. 2014), available at http://www.leg.state.co.us/clics/clics2014a/csl.nsf/fsbillcont2/70364091166B28FC87257C4300636F6B/$FILE/125_01.pdf.

[63] Id. at 2, 6.

[64] Id. at 6.

[65] Id. at 2.

[66] Id.

[67] Niraj Chokshi, Colorado Passes Nation’s First Law Regulating UberX, Lyft, Washington Post (June 6, 2014), http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2014/06/06/colorado-passes-nations-first-law-regulating-uberx-lyft/.

[68] See Vuong, supra note 44.

[69] Kelli Kelty, Colo. Legislative Counsel Staff, Transportation Network Companies, Gen. Assemb. 14-07, Reg. Sess. (2014), available at http://cdn.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite?blobcol=urldata&blobheader=application%2Fpdf&blobkey=id&blobtable=MungoBlobs&blobwhere=1252019169757&ssbinary=true.

[70] Nairi Hourdajian, Eliminating Ridesharing Insurance Ambiguity, Ins. Note (Mar. 14, 2014), http://insurancenote.net/warranty-entitling-the-holder-to-care-at-home/eliminating-ridesharing-insurance-ambiguity/.

[71] Norma B. Levy & Louis H. Kozloff, Ridesharing Presents Challenges and Opportunities for Insurers, Property Casualty 360º, (Oct. 21, 2014), http://www.propertycasualty360.com/2014/10/21/ridesharing-presents-challenges-and-opportunities?page=2.

[72] See id.

[73]Insurance Designed with Uber in Mind, Uber, http://uberxcolorado.com/drive/?page_id=483 (last visited Sept. 17, 2015).

[74] Chokshi, supra note 67.

[75] See Colorado Makes Uber History, Uber Newsroom, (June 5, 2014), available at http://newsroom.uber.com/denver/2014/06/colorado-makes-uber-history-2/ (Uber calling the regulations “stringent” yet “sensible.”). Kathleen Lavine, Colorado Passes Bill Legalizing UberX, Lyft, Denver Bus. J. (Apr. 29, 2014, 5:46 PM MDT), available at http://www.bizjournals.com/denver/blog/boosters_bits/2014/04/colorado-passes-bill-legalizing-uberx-lyft.html (Lyft saying were “thrilled” by the “rigorous set of safety standards.”).

[76] See Decision 13-09-045 Adopting Rules and Regulations to Protect Safety While Allowing New Entrants to the Transportation Industry, Cal. Pub. Utilities Comm’n 2 (Sept. 23, 2013), http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PublishedDocs/Published/G000/M077/K192/77192335.PDF.

[77] S.B. 14-125, 69th Gen. Assemb., Reg. Sess. (Colo. 2014), http://www.leg.state.co.us/clics/clics2014a/csl.nsf/fsbillcont2/70364091166B28FC87257C4300636F6B/$FILE/125_01.pdf.

[78] Hourdajian, supra note 70.

[79] Andy Vuong, Colorado Lawmakers Still Wrangling Insurance for Lyft, UberX, Denver Post (Apr. 2, 2014, 6:41:13 PM MDT), http://www.denverpost.com/business/ci_25480333/colorado-lawmakers-still-wrangling-insurance-lyft-uberx.

[80] See Assemb. B. 2293 § 5433, 2013-2014 Assemb., Reg. Sess. (Cal. 2014), available at http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140AB2293.

[81] See id. § 5438.

[82] See Decision 13-09-045 Adopting Rules and Regulations to Protect Safety While Allowing New Entrants to the Transportation Industry, Cal. Pub. Utilities Comm’n 2 (Sept. 23, 2013), http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PublishedDocs/Published/G000/M077/K192/77192335.PDF.

Eldred & the New Rationality

This Online Original is available for download (PDF) here.

Article | 104 KY. L. J. ONLINE 1 | July 17, 2015

Brian L. Frye[1]

Abstract

Historically, the rational basis test has been a constitutional rubber stamp. In Eldred v. Ashcroft and Golan v. Holder, the Supreme Court applied the rational basis test and respectively held that Congress could extend the copyright term of existing works and restore copyright protection of public domain works, despite evidence that Congress intended to benefit copyright owners at the expense of the public.But in Lawrence v. Texas and United States v. Windsor, the Supreme Court seems to have applied the rational basis test and held that state and federal laws were unconstitutional because they were motivated by animosity, and in Obergefell v. Hodges, it held that states must license marriages between two people of the same sex, because there is no legitimate basis to refuse.This essay argues that Lawrence, Windsor, and Obergefell may reflect the emergence of a “new rationality” that authorizes courts to consider legislative intent when evaluating the constitutionality of legislation. If so, perhaps the Court should reconsider Eldred and Golan.

Introduction

Rational basis review is famously forgiving. It provides that most legislation is constitutional, so long as it is conceivably related to any legitimate government interest, even if that interest did not actually motivate the legislation.[2] Accordingly, in Eldred v. Ashcroft (2003), the Court applied rational basis review and held that Congress could constitutionally extend the copyright term of existing works of authorship, because it could have believed that doing so would promote their creation and dissemination.[3]But rational basis review seems to have changed since Eldred. In Lawrence v. Texas (2003), the Court seemingly applied rational basis review and held that a Texas law prohibiting homosexual conduct was unconstitutional because it was motivated by animosity toward homosexuals.[4] In United States v. Windsor (2013), it held that a federal law prohibiting the recognition of same-sex marriages was unconstitutional for the same reason.[5] And, most recently, in Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), it held that the Fourteenth Amendment requires states to license marriages between two people of the same sex, apparently because there is no legitimate basis to refuse.[6] So, this “new rationality” apparently provides that legislation cannot be motivated by animosity, even if it is conceivably related to a legitimate government interest.This change in rational basis review presents an obvious question: Can Eldred survive Lawrence, Windsor, Obergefell and the new rationality? In practice, of course, the answer is obviously “yes.” The Court has long adhered to the maxim that “foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.”[7] Or rather, as Justice Holmes more gently observed, “The life of the law has not been logic; it has been experience.”[8]In fact, it already has. In Golan v. Holder (2012), the Supreme Court relied on Eldred to hold that Congress could constitutionally restore the copyright in certain works that had fallen into the public domain, because it could rationally believe that doing so could “encourage the dissemination of existing and future works” and induce “greater investment in the creative process.”[9]But the more interesting question is whether Eldred, Golan, and other cases decided under the rational basis test should survive the new rationality. If the standard of review has changed, why has it changed, why is that change legitimate, and how should it affect the way the court reviews cases under the rational basis test, if at all?

A Potted History of Constitutional Review

The Court has always assumed its authority to review the constitutionality of federal and state legislation.[10] Most famously, in Marbury v. Madison (1803), it held that a federal law was unconstitutional.[11] But the antebellum Court was reluctant to exercise the power of judicial review.[12] While it occasionally held that state laws were unconstitutional, it did not hold another federal law unconstitutional until Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857).[13]Notably, the antebellum Court held that its authority to review the constitutionality of state legislation was limited, especially in the case of legislation affecting individual rights. In Barron v. Baltimore (1833), it held that the Bill of Rights did not apply to the states.[14] And it assumed that it lacked the authority to review the constitutionality of state legislation based on the state “police power” to promote health, safety, morals, and general welfare.The ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868 changed the scope of judicial review. Initially, the Court was reluctant to expand its authority.[15] But eventually, it held that it was authorized to review the constitutionality of all legislation, state and federal, based on the police power.[16] And it assumed that its authority to review the constitutionality of legislation extended to economic legislation.[17]The stringency of the Court’s constitutional review of economic legislation reached its zenith in Lochner v. New York (1905), in which it held that the New York Bakeshop Act, which prohibited most bakery employees from working more than ten hours per day or sixty hours per week, was unconstitutional because it impeded the liberty of contract without a legitimate purpose.[18] Specifically, the Court held that a police power claim cannot be “a mere pretext,” and concluded that the Bakeshop Act was not a valid exercise of the state police power because its “real object and purpose were simply to regulate the hours of labor . . . in a private business, not dangerous in any degree to morals, or in any real and substantial degree to the health of the employees.”[19] In other words, the Court held that constitutional review obligated it to consider whether legislation was intended to achieve a legitimate purpose, and likely to actually achieve that purpose: “When assertions such as we have adverted to become necessary in order to give, if possible, a plausible foundation for the contention that the law is a ‘health law,’ it gives rise to at least a suspicion that there was some other motive dominating the legislature than the purpose to subserve the public health or welfare.”[20]Lochner immediately became the bete noire of progressives, who argued that courts should defer to legislators, especially in the case of economic legislation. Eventually, it became synonymous with judicial overreaching.[21] Commentators even coined the term “Lochnering” to describe illegitimate judicial review of economic legislation.[22] Notably, Lochner was initially an outlier, although the Court eventually began to apply its strict standard of review in other cases.[23]In any case, Lochner didn’t last long. In Nebbia v. New York (1934), the Court held that a New York law creating a Milk Control Board to establish the retail price of milk was constitutional because the liberty of contract was not “absolute” and could be regulated in order to promote the general welfare, so long as the regulations were not “unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious, and that the means selected shall have a real and substantial relation to the object sought to be attained.”[24] And in West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish (1937), the Court held that a Washington minimum wage law was constitutional because Washington “was entitled to adopt measures to reduce the evils of the 'sweating system,'” and “had the right to consider that its minimum wage requirements would be an important aid in carrying out its policy of protection.”[25]Finally, in United States v. Carolene Products Company (1938), the Court held that a federal law prohibiting the “shipment in interstate commerce” of skimmed milk compounded with “any fat or oil other than milk fat” was constitutional because Congress could rationally believe that it was “‘an adulterated article of food, injurious to the public health.’"[26] Specifically, the Court held:

[T]he existence of facts supporting the legislative judgment is to be presumed, for regulatory legislation affecting ordinary commercial transactions is not to be pronounced unconstitutional unless in the light of the facts made known or generally assumed it is of such a character as to preclude the assumption that it rests upon some rational basis within the knowledge and experience of the legislators.[27]

And then, in the most famous footnote in constitutional history, the Court noted that this “presumption of constitutionality” may not apply to fundamental rights protected by the Constitution, or to laws that affect minority groups:

There may be narrower scope for operation of the presumption of constitutionality when legislation appears on its face to be within a specific prohibition of the Constitution, such as those of the first ten Amendments, which are deemed equally specific when held to be embraced within the Fourteenth. . . .

It is unnecessary to consider now whether legislation which restricts those political processes which can ordinarily be expected to bring about repeal of undesirable legislation, is to be subjected to more exacting judicial scrutiny under the general prohibitions of the Fourteenth Amendment than are most other types of legislation. . . .

Nor need we enquire whether similar considerations enter into the review of statutes directed at particular religious . . . or national . . . or racial minorities . . . : whether prejudice against discrete and insular minorities may be a special condition, which tends seriously to curtail the operation of those political processes ordinarily to be relied upon to protect minorities, and which may call for a correspondingly more searching judicial inquiry.[28]

Footnote four of Carolene Products eventually became the basis for modern constitutional review, which requires courts to apply three levels of judicial scrutiny when reviewing the constitutionality of government action, depending on the nature of the claim: strict scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny, and rational basis.[29]Strict scrutiny review applies to government action that affects fundamental rights and certain “suspect classes,” like race, religion, and national origin.[30] In order to survive strict scrutiny review, a government action must be justified by a compelling governmental interest, narrowly tailored to achieve that goal or interest, and the least restrictive means for achieving that interest.[31] It has become a truism that strict scrutiny is “‘strict’ in theory and fatal in fact,” because government action subject to strict scrutiny review is almost always held unconstitutional.[32]Intermediate scrutiny review applies to government action that affects other “suspect classes,” including gender. In order to survive intermediate scrutiny review, a government action must be “substantially related” to the achievement of “important governmental objectives.”[33] Scholars have argued that the Court developed intermediate scrutiny in order to protect groups that lack power in the political process.[34] In any case, while intermediate scrutiny is theoretically less stringent than strict scrutiny, it tends to produce similar results.Rational basis review applies to government action that does not affect a fundamental right or suspect class. In order to survive rational basis review, a government action must only be “rationally related” to a “legitimate government interest.”[35] Rational basis review is famously lenient. Any conceivable reason for the action is deemed rational, even if it is not the government’s actual reason for the action, and any conceivable interest is deemed legitimate, even if it is not the government’s actual interest.[36] Under rational basis review, courts must assume that the government’s motives are legitimate, even in the face of evidence to the contrary.[37] Scholars have long observed that rational basis review is “virtually none in fact.”[38]For example, in Williamson v. Lee Optical, the Court applied rational basis review to an Oklahoma statute that, inter alia, prohibited the manufacture of eyeglasses without a prescription and held that the statute did not violate due process or equal protection, because the legislature could have had a legitimate reason for enacting it. Moreover, the Court explicitly stated:

The day is gone when this Court uses the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to strike down state laws, regulatory of business and industrial conditions, because they may be unwise, improvident, or out of harmony with a particular school of thought. . . . For protection against abuses by legislatures the people must resort to the polls, not to the courts.[39]

As a consequence, challenging the constitutionality of economic legislation on due process or equal protection grounds soon became seen as quixotic, at best. For example, the Onion Futures Act of 1958 prohibited the sale of futures contracts in onions.[40] Initially, the Chicago Mercantile Exchange filed an action arguing that the Act was unconstitutional and requesting an injunction prohibiting its enforcement.[41] But when the district court applied the rational basis test and upheld the constitutionality of the Act, the Chicago Mercantile Exchange did not appeal because it considered the action hopeless.[42]

Eldred v. Ashcroft

The Court has also applied the rational basis test to actions challenging the constitutionality of copyright legislation. For example, the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act (“CTEA”) extended the copyright term of existing works of authorship by twenty years.[43]In Eldred v. Ashcroft (2003), petitioners argued, inter alia, that this retroactive extension exceeded Congress’s authority under the Intellectual Property Clause, because extending the copyright term of existing works does not and cannot “promote the Progress of Science.”[44] The Court has uniformly held that the purpose of copyright is to encourage the production of works of authorship.[45] Petitioners argued that extending the copyright term of an existing work cannot encourage its production.[46]The Court applied the rational basis test and unsurprisingly held that the CTEA was constitutional. Writing for the majority, Justice Ginsburg stated, “The CTEA reflects judgments of a kind Congress typically makes, judgments we cannot dismiss as outside the Legislature's domain.”[47] She observed that Congress intended the CTEA to “ensure that American authors would receive the same copyright protection in Europe as their European counterparts,” “provide greater incentive for American and other authors to create and disseminate their work in the United States,” and “encourage copyright holders to invest in the restoration and public distribution of their works.”[48] And she concluded, “In sum, we find that the CTEA is a rational enactment; we are not at liberty to second-guess congressional determinations and policy judgments of this order, however debatable or arguably unwise they may be.”[49]However, as Justices Stevens and Breyer pointed out in their dissents, the justifications provided by Congress are not credible and almost certainly pretextual. As Justice Stevens observed, the retroactive extension of the copyright term “will not even arguably promote any new works by authors or inventors,” and equitable concerns are “a classic non sequitur” because the “reason for increasing the inducement to create something new simply does not apply to an already-created work.”[50] Moreover, as Justice Breyer observed, “no one could reasonably conclude that copyright's traditional economic rationale applies here,” because the value of the copyright extension is too small to affect the incentives of marginal authors.[51] The claim that retroactive copyright extension provides incentives to republish and redistribute existing works is totally inconsistent with both the purpose of copyright and actual experience, which shows that public domain works are more readily available at lower prices than copyrighted works.[52]Finally, Justice Breyer pointed out that the actual reason that Congress retroactively extended the copyright term, as reflected in the legislative history of the CTEA, was to provide financial assistance to the entertainment industry, a purpose that is not consistent with the justification for copyright protection:

I can find nothing in the Copyright Clause that would authorize Congress to enhance the copyright grant's monopoly power, likely leading to higher prices both at home and abroad, solely in order to produce higher foreign earnings. That objective is not a copyright objective. Nor, standing alone, is it related to any other objective more closely tied to the Clause itself. Neither can higher corporate profits alone justify the grant's enhancement. The Clause seeks public, not private, benefits.[53]

Indeed, as many scholars have observed, the true purpose of the CTEA was to prevent certain iconic copyrighted works from falling into the public domain, and thereby enable their owners to continue to collect monopoly rents on their use.[54] As a result, the CTEA is often pejoratively referred to as the “Mickey Mouse Protection Act.”[55] In fact, a scholarly consensus has emerged that rent-seeking legislation of this kind is improper and ought to be unconstitutional.[56] However, this position is obviously inconsistent with traditional rational basis review of economic legislation.[57] As the Court implicitly observed in Eldred, if rational basis review does not permit examination of the actual motives for a government action, then any conceivably legitimate motive will do, no matter how implausible. 

The “New Rationality”

Under traditional rational basis review, Eldred was a foregone conclusion. But what if rational basis review changed to permit consideration of the actual motives for a government action? Can Eldred survive more searching review? And should it?It appears that rational basis review may have undergone just such a change. In Lawrence v. Texas (2003),[58] United States v. Windsor (2013),[59] and Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), the Court seems to have applied rational basis review, but considered the actual motive for a government action or omission, rather than searching for a conceivably legitimate motive.[60]In Lawrence v. Texas, the Court held that a Texas law prohibiting homosexual conduct was unconstitutional, because it violated due process.[61] The basis for the Court’s ruling is surprisingly unclear, because it did not specify the standard of constitutional review.[62] However, Lawrence explicitly overruled Bowers v. Hardwick (1986), which applied rational basis review to hold that “the presumed belief of a majority of the electorate in Georgia that homosexual sodomy is immoral and unacceptable” was a legitimate government interest.[63] In Romer v. Evans (1996), the Court applied rational basis review to hold that an amendment to the Colorado Constitution violated equal protection, because it was “born of animosity toward the class of persons affected,” which is not a legitimate government interest.[64] The Lawrence Court relied on Romer, holding that there is no legitimate government interest in prohibiting homosexual conduct: “The Texas statute furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual.”[65]Moreover, Justice O’Connor’s concurrence explicitly applied rational basis review and concluded that the Texas law violated equal protection because it was intended to harm homosexuals, and “some objectives, such as a bare desire to harm a politically unpopular group, are not legitimate state interests.”[66] And Justice Scalia’s dissent explicitly pointed out that the majority can only be applying rational basis review:

I turn now to the ground on which the Court squarely rests its holding: the contention that there is no rational basis for the law here under attack. This proposition is so out of accord with our jurisprudence—indeed, with the jurisprudence of any society we know—that it requires little discussion.[67]

Accordingly, it appears that the Lawrence Court applied rational basis review and held that the Texas law was unconstitutional because animosity toward a politically unpopular group is not a legitimate government interest: “[T]he fact that the governing majority in a State has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law prohibiting the practice.”[68]Then, in United States v. Windsor, the Court held that a federal law prohibiting the federal recognition of same-sex marriages was unconstitutional because it violated the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.[69] As in Lawrence, the basis for the Court’s ruling in Windsor is unclear, because it did not specify the standard of constitutional review. However, it seems that the Court once again applied rational basis review and held that the federal law failed to advance a legitimate public interest because it was motivated by animosity:

The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity. By seeking to displace this protection and treating those persons as living in marriages less respected than others, the federal statute is in violation of the Fifth Amendment.[70]

Moreover, in his dissent, Justice Scalia once again observed that the majority must have been applying rational basis review, albeit of a form considerably more stringent than historically applied:

In accord with my previously expressed skepticism about the Court's “tiers of scrutiny” approach, I would review this classification only for its rationality. As nearly as I can tell, the Court agrees with that; its opinion does not apply strict scrutiny, and its central propositions are taken from rational-basis cases like Moreno. But the Court certainly does not apply anything that resembles that deferential framework.[71]

Finally, in Obergefell v. Hodges, the Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment requires states to license marriages between two people of the same sex.[72] Again, the basis for the Court’s holding is unclear, because it did not specify the standard of constitutional review. But it appears to have applied rational basis review, and held that there is no legitimate basis to refuse to license marriages between two people of the same sex. The Court did not hold that gay people are a suspect class, which would have required the application of strict scrutiny. Instead, it observed that marriage is fundamental right protected by due process, and held that the refusal to license marriages between two people of the same sex violates equal protection by preventing gays and lesbians from exercising that right:

It is now clear that the challenged laws burden the liberty of same-sex couples, and it must be further acknowledged that they abridge central precepts of equality. Here the marriage laws enforced by the respondents are in essence unequal: same-sex couples are denied all the benefits afforded to opposite-sex couples and are barred from exercising a fundamental right. Especially against a long history of disapproval of their relationships, this denial to same-sex couples of the right to marry works a grave and continuing harm. The imposition of this disability on gays and lesbians serves to disrespect and subordinate them. And the Equal Protection Clause, like the Due Process Clause, prohibits this unjustified infringement of the fundamental right to marry.[73]

Indeed, Chief Justice Roberts’s dissent explicitly accused the majority of “Lochnering,” or constitutionalizing its policy preferences: “Ultimately, only one precedent offers any support for the majority’s methodology: Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45.”[74] Roberts argued that the fundamental right of marriage provides only a right to marry “as traditionally defined,” which has never included a right to marry a person of the same sex, and that the majority’s decision was based only on its own policy preferences:

The truth is that today’s decision rests on nothing more than the majority’s own conviction that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry because they want to, and that “it would disparage their choices and diminish their personhood to deny them this right.” . . . Whatever force that belief may have as a matter of moral philosophy, it has no more basis in the Constitution than did the naked policy preferences adopted in Lochner.[75]

So, it appears that Lawrence, Windsor, and Obergefell may all have applied a new form of rational basis review, based on Romer and other cases, under which courts must consider the actual motivation for a government action in determining whether it advances a legitimate state interest, which cannot include animosity. Many commentators have argued that this development should be understood as the gradual emergence of a new level of judicial scrutiny, “rational basis review with bite,” which is limited to government actions that affect particular suspect classes.[76] Curiously, this new level of scrutiny seems indistinguishable in practice from intermediate scrutiny.[77] Others have argued that the Court actually created, sub silentio, a fundamental right to engage in homosexual conduct.[78] And some federal courts have agreed with this reading.[79]But why not take Lawrence, Windsor, and Obergefell at face value and assume that the Court actually intended to change rational basis review, by authorizing courts to consider the actual motivation for government action when determining whether it was intended to advance a legitimate government interest? I will refer to this apparent change in the application of the rational basis test as the “new rationality.” But the terms of the new rationality remain unclear.If the new rationality requires courts applying the rational basis doctrine to consider the actual motives for a government action, rather than hunting for any conceivably legitimate motive, which motives are legitimate and which are not? In Lawrence, Windsor, and Obergefell, the court held that animosity is not a legitimate motive, and explicitly rejected religious justifications for legislative decisions. That stands to reason, although as Justice White observed in Bowers, “if all laws representing essentially moral choices are to be invalidated under the Due Process Clause, the courts will be very busy indeed.”[80]Are any other motives illegitimate under the rational basis test? Several scholars have argued that the new rationality should also extend to rational basis review of economic legislation. For example, David Bernstein has argued that Lawrence and other substantive due process cases reflect a gradual return to the form of judicial review applied in Lochner.[81] And Randy Barnett has argued that Lawrence reflects the wholesale importation of libertarian values into constitutional review.[82]Some federal judges seem to agree. Several courts have held that economic legislation failed the rational basis test because its actual purpose was economic protectionism. For example, in Craigmiles v. Giles (2002), the Sixth Circuit held that rational basis review does not require courts to accept pretextual justifications for government actions, and that economic protectionism is not a legitimate government interest.[83] In Merrifield v. Lockyer (2008), the Ninth Circuit held that rational basis review does not require courts to accept irrational justifications, and that economic protectionism is not a legitimate government interest.[84] In St. Joseph Abbey v. Castille (2013), the Fifth Circuit held that rational basis review requires courts to identify an actual rational basis for believing that a government action would advance a legitimate government interest, and that economic protectionism is not legitimate.[85] And in Wildcat Moving v. Zawacki (2013), the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky applied Craigmiles and held that a Kentucky law regulating intrastate moving failed the rational basis test because its sole purpose was “to protect existing moving companies from outside economic competition.”[86]Of course, these cases appear to be facially inconsistent with Supreme Court precedent. Specifically, in New Orleans v. Dukes (1976), the Supreme Court held that a New Orleans ordinance prohibiting pushcart food vendors in the French Quarter, with a “grandfather clause” that provided an exception for certain long-time vendors, passed the rational basis test, because:

The city could reasonably decide that newer businesses were less likely to have built up substantial reliance interests in continued operation in the Vieux Carre and that the two vendors who qualified under the "grandfather clause"—both of whom had operated in the area for over 20 years rather than only eight—had themselves become part of the distinctive character and charm that distinguishes the Vieux Carre. We cannot say that these judgments so lack rationality that they constitute a constitutionally impermissible denial of equal protection.[87]

Essentially, the Dukes Court held that courts should not question the rationality of economic legislation explicitly overruling Morey v. Doud (1957), the last case in which it had overruled economic legislation as irrational.[88]And yet, the Supreme Court seems newly concerned by government action based on economic protectionism. For example, in North Carolina Board of Dental Examiners v. Federal Trade Commission (2015), the Court held that the North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners was not entitled to state-action antitrust immunity because it was not actively supervised by the state.[89] The Board of Dental Examiners was a state regulatory body composed primarily of practicing dentists, which prohibited non-dentists from offering teeth-whitening services that do not require medical skill. The FTC argued that the Board’s action violated federal antitrust law, but the Board responded that it was entitled to state-action antitrust immunity. While the Court did not actually apply the rational basis test, it was clearly concerned about the legitimacy of the Board’s action. Indeed, Justice Alito’s dissent explicitly argued that the majority’s opinion was motivated by opposition to economic protectionism:

When the Court asks whether market participants control the North Carolina Board, the Court in essence is asking whether this regulatory body has been captured by the entities that it is supposed to regulate. Regulatory capture can occur in many ways. So why ask only whether the members of a board are active market participants? The answer may be that determining when regulatory capture has occurred is no simple task. That answer provides a reason for relieving courts from the obligation to make such determinations at all. It does not explain why it is appropriate for the Court to adopt the rather crude test for capture that constitutes the holding of today's decision.[90]

Eldred & the New Rationality

If the new rationality prohibits economic protectionism—or rather, corruption—an Eldred survive the new rationality? In practice, of course it can. The Court can do whatever it likes, and it is perfectly capable of turning a blind eye to corruption, if it so chooses. In fact, Eldred has already survived the new rationality. In Golan v. Holder (2012), it relied on Eldred to hold that Congress could restore copyright protection of works that had fallen into the public domain.[91] In particular, the Court held that the Copyright Clause empowers Congress to grant copyright protection in order to promote both the creation of new works and the dissemination of existing works, and Congress could have believed that restoring copyright protection of existing works could encourage their dissemination.[92] In other words, the Court applied the traditional rational basis test, rather than the new rationality.The more interesting question is, should Eldred and Golan survive the new rationality? And that is a question that has been percolating for quite some time. Ever since Eldred was decided, scholars have recognized that requiring courts to consider the actual motives for copyright legislation would inevitably invoke the spectre of Lochner.[93] As a consequence, they have argued that courts should defer to Congress when reviewing copyright legislation, and by extension, that courts should defer to legislatures when reviewing economic legislation.[94]And yet, perhaps they overstate their case. The traditional reason for rejecting Lochner and its more stringent review of economic legislation is that courts should respect the democratic process, even if it results in government action unlikely to achieve welfare-maximizing ends.[95] Or rather, as Justice Holmes put it, “if my fellow citizens want to go to Hell I will help them. It’s my job.”[96]But what if economic legislation is not the result of the democratic process? What if it is the result of corruption? Should courts defer to all economic legislation, even in the face of evidence of corruption? The justification for judicial deference is that courts should respect government actions based on majority opinion. As Justice Stevens observed:

I think it appropriate to emphasize the distinction between constitutionality and wise policy . . . [A]s I recall my esteemed former colleague, Thurgood Marshall, remarking on numerous occasions: “The Constitution does not prohibit legislatures from enacting stupid laws.”[97]

But Lawrence, Windsor, and Obergefell held that courts should not respect government actions based on animosity, because animosity is not a legitimate basis for government action. Neither should courts respect government actions based on corruption, because it is not even an expression of majority opinion, it is just a means of rent-seeking. As other commentators have noted, “[w]ith the appearance in the circuits of a new series of cases applying ‘rational basis with bite,’ one might ask whether underlying them is another normative change, one of growing public disapproval of rent-seeking and special-interest legislation.”[98]In other words, perhaps the “new rationality” should be understood to provide that courts may consider legislative intent, but not legislative wisdom. Of course, legislative intent may be diffuse and difficult to discern. And yet, courts routinely consider the intent of non-economic legislation. Indeed, the purpose of strict and intermediate scrutiny is essentially to enable courts to review the intentions motivating government action that affects fundamental rights and minority groups. While the stakes are high, because the protecting fundamental rights and minority groups is of paramount importance, there is also room for legitimate disagreement on normative grounds as to what counts as a fundamental right and how minority groups ought to be protected. By contrast, corruption and rent-seeking are considerably easier to identify.So, perhaps the new rationality provides that government action can be foolish, but cannot have improper motives, like animosity or corruption. Courts can and do review the motives for government action. There is no reason for them not to review for both animosity and corruption. And there is no reason to believe that the public will object. In fact, it is far more likely that the public will object to invalidation of government action based on animosity than that it will object to the invalidation of government action based on corruption.It goes without saying that Eldred and Golan would not fare well under this “new rationality.” No one seriously believes that the CTEA was intended to do anything but benefit the owners of valuable copyrights that were nearing the end of their term. Any degree of scrutiny more searching than the Court’s credulous acceptance of Congress’s absurd justifications would require reversal. But it remains to be seen whether the Court will follow this new line of doctrine to its logical conclusion.

---

[1] Assistant Professor of Law, University of Kentucky College of Law. J.D., New York University School of Law, 2005; M.F.A., San Francisco Art Institute, 1997; B.A., University of California, Berkeley, 1995. Thanks to Paul Salamanca for his helpful comments.

[2] See Williamson v. Lee Optical of Okla., Inc., 348 U.S. 483, 487-88 (1955).

[3] See generally Eldred v. Ashcroft, 537 U.S. 186 (2003).

[4] Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 583 (2003).

[5] United States v. Windsor, 133 S.Ct. 2675, 2696 (2013).

[6] Obergefell v. Hodges, Nos. 14–556, 14–562, 14–571, 14–574, 2015 WL 2473451 (U.S. June 26, 2015).

[7] Ralph Waldo Emerson, Self-Reliance, in Essays by Ralph Waldo Emerson: First and Second Series Complete in One Volume 31, 41 (Thomas Y. Crowell Company, Inc. 1951) (1926). Also available at http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Essays:_First_Series/Self-Reliance.

[8] Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., The Common Law 1 (1881).

[9] Golan v. Holder, 132 S. Ct. 873, 876 (2012).

[10] See generally Hylton v. United States, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 171 (1796) (reviewing the constitutionality of a federal tax under the Taxation Clause); Fletcher v. Peck, 10 U.S. (6 Cranch) 87 (1810) (reviewing the constitutionality of a state law under the Contract Clause).

[11] Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 138 (1803).

[12] See, e.g., Ogden v. Saunders, 25 U.S. (12 Wheat.) 213, 270 (1827) (“It is but a decent respect due to the wisdom, the integrity, and the patriotism of the legislative body, by which any law is passed, to presume in favour of its validity, until its violation of the constitution is proved beyond all reasonable doubt.”).

[13] Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393, 395-96 (1857).

[14] Barron v. Baltimore, 32 U.S. (7 Pet.) 243, 248 (1833).

[15] See generally The Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3 (1883); The Slaughterhouse Cases, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 36, (1873).

[16] Mugler v. Kansas, 8 S. Ct. 273, 291-92 (1887).

[17] See generally Allgeyer v. Louisiana, 165 U.S. 578 (1897) (holding unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of liberty a Louisiana law which penalized a citizen of that state for contracting for insurance in New York).

[18] Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45, 64 (1905).

[19] Id. at 56, 64.

[20] Id. at 62-63.

[21] David E. Bernstein, Lochner's Legacy's Legacy, 82 Tex. L. Rev. 1, 2 n.4 (2003).

[22] See generally Cass R. Sunstein, Reply—Lochnering, 82 Tex. L. Rev. 65 (2003) (discussing judicial and scholarly treatment of the regulation of economic legislation).

[23] Bernstein, supra note 21.

[24] Nebbia v. New York, 291 U.S. 502, 525 (1934).

[25] W. Coast Hotel v. Parrish, 300 U.S. 379, 398-99 (1937).

[26] United States v. Carolene Prods. Co., 304 U.S. 144, at 146, 146 n.1 (1938).

[27] Id. at 152.

[28] Id. at 152 n.4.

[29] See Adam Winkler, Fatal in Theory and Strict in Fact: An Empirical Analysis of Strict Scrutiny in the Federal Courts, 59 Vand. L. Rev. 793, 798 (2006) (“As a mode of judicial review in constitutional law cases, the strict scrutiny standard was first suggested by implication in the famous footnote four of United States v. Carolene Products.”).

[30] See Skinner v. Okla. ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942) (“We mention these matters not to reexamine the scope of the police power of the States. We advert to them merely in emphasis of our view that strict scrutiny of the classification which a State makes in a sterilization law is essential, lest unwittingly or otherwise invidious discriminations are made against groups or types of individuals in violation of the constitutional guaranty of just and equal laws.”).

[31] E.g., Winkler, supra note 29, at 800-01.

[32] Gerald Gunther, The Supreme Court, 1971 Term - Foreword: In Search of Evolving Doctrine on a Changing Court: A Model for a Newer Equal Protection, 86 Harv. L. Rev. 1, 8 (1972). But see Adarand Constructors v. Pena, 515 U.S. 200, 237 (1995) (expressing the “wish to dispel the notion that strict scrutiny is ‘strict in theory, but fatal in fact’”). See also Winkler, supra note 29, at 796 (observing that “30 percent of all applications of strict scrutiny--nearly one in three--result in the challenged law being upheld”).

[33] Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190, 197 (1976).

[34] Gayle Lynn Pettinga, Rational Basis with Bite: Intermediate Scrutiny by Any Other Name, 62 Ind. L. J. 779, 784 (1987).

[36] See, e.g., Williamson v. Lee Optical, 348 U.S. at 487-88 (“But the law need not be in every respect logically consistent with its aims to be constitutional. It is enough that there is an evil at hand for correction, and that it might be thought that the particular legislative measure was a rational way to correct it.”).

[37] See, e.g., City of New Orleans v. Dukes, 427 U.S. 297, 303-04 (1976) (“When local economic regulation is challenged solely as violating the Equal Protection Clause, this Court consistently defers to legislative determinations as to the desirability of particular statutory discriminations. . . . Unless a classification trammels fundamental personal rights or is drawn upon inherently suspect distinctions such as race, religion, or alienage, our decisions presume the constitutionality of the statutory discriminations and require only that the classification challenged be rationally related to a legitimate state interest. States are accorded wide latitude in the regulation of their local economies under their police powers, and rational distinctions may be made with substantially less than mathematical exactitude. Legislatures may implement their program step by step . . . , in such economic areas, adopting regulations that only partially ameliorate a perceived evil and deferring complete elimination of the evil to future regulations. . . . In short, the judiciary may not sit as a superlegislature to judge the wisdom or desirability of legislative policy determinations made in areas that neither affect fundamental rights nor proceed along suspect lines . . . in the local economic sphere, it is only the invidious discrimination, the wholly arbitrary act, which cannot stand consistently with the Fourteenth Amendment.”).

[38] Gunther, supra at note 32, at 8.

[39] Williamson v. Lee Optical, 348 U.S. at 488-89.

[40] 7 U.S.C.A. § 13-1(a) (West, current through P.L. 114-9 approved Apr. 7, 2015).

[41] Chicago Mercantile Exch. v. Tieken, 178 F. Supp. 779, 780 (N.D. Ill. 1959).

[42] See Russell Wasendorf, Sr., Interview with Leo Melamed, Innovation Deserves More Than 15 Minutes of Fame, SFO Magazine, June 2003, at 20, 22.

[43] Pub. L. 105-298, §102(b), (d), 112 Stat. 2827-28 (codified as amended in scattered sections of 17 U.S.C.). Under the Copyright Act of 1976, the copyright term was the life of the author plus fifty years. The CTEA extended the copyright term to the life of the author plus seventy years. See id.; 17 U.S.C. 302(a) (West, current through P.L. 114-25 (excluding P.L. 114-18) approved June 15, 2015).

[44] U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 8; Eldred v. Ashcroft, 537 U.S. 186, 189 (2003). Petitioners also argued that the extension of the copyright term violated the “limited Times” requirement of the Intellectual Property Clause and the First Amendment, but these claims were not decided under the rational basis test. Eldred, 537 U.S. at 199-204.

[45] See, e.g., Mazer v. Stein, 347 U.S. 201, 219 (1954) (“The economic philosophy behind the clause empowering Congress to grant patents and copyrights is the conviction that encouragement of individual effort by personal gain is the best way to advance public welfare through the talents of authors and inventors in ‘Science and useful Arts.’”). See also Fox Film Corp. v. Doyal, 286 U.S. 123, 127-28 (1932). (“The sole interest of the United States and the primary object in conferring the monopoly lie in the general benefits derived by the public from the labors of authors. A copyright, like a patent, is at once the equivalent given by the public for benefits bestowed by the genius and meditations and skill of individuals, and the incentive to further efforts for the same important objects.”) (internal quotations omitted).

[46] Eldred, 537 U.S. at 196 n.3.

[47] Id. at 205-08.

[48] Id. at 205-207.

[49] Id. at 208.

[50] Id. at 239-40 (Stevens, J., dissenting).

[51] Id. at 254-55 (Breyer, J., dissenting) (“Using assumptions about the time value of money provided us by a group of economists (including five Nobel prize winners), it seems fair to say that, for example, a 1% likelihood of earning $100 annually for 20 years, starting 75 years into the future, is worth less than seven cents today.”) (citation omitted); id. at 267 (estimating “the economic value of 1998 Act copyrights relative to the economic value of a perpetual copyright, as well as the incremental value of a 20–year extension of a 75–year term”) (citation omitted).

[52] Eldred, 537 U.S. at 261 (Breyer, J., dissenting) (“[N]ew, cheaper editions can be expected when works come out of copyright”) (quoting Edward Rappaport, Cong. Research Serv., Copyright Term Extension: Estimating the Economic Values 3 (1998)).

[53] Id. at 262-63.

[54] Paul M. Schwartz & William Michael Treanor, Eldred and Lochner: Copyright Term Extension and Intellectual Property As Constitutional Property, 112 Yale L. J. 2331, 2333 (2003) (“At the time of the statute's passage, a number of iconic works were on the cusp of entering the public domain, the most prominent being early films starring Mickey Mouse.”).

[55] Lawrence Lessig, Copyright's First Amendment, 48 UCLA L. Rev. 1057, 1065 (2001).

[56] Schwartz & Treanor, supra note 54, at 2332 (“With striking unanimity, scholars have called for aggressive judicial review of the constitutionality of congressional legislation in this area.”).

[57] Id. at 2332-34.

[58] See generally 539 U.S. 558 (2003) (appearing to apply rational basis to Texas’ actual interest in promoting morality).

[59] See generally 133 S. Ct. 2675 (2013) (appearing to apply rational basis to the Texas’ actual interest in promoting morality).

[60] E.g., Lawrence, 539 U.S. at 582 (O’Connor, J., concurring) (“Texas attempts to justify its law, and the effects of the law, by arguing that the statute satisfies rational basis review because it furthers the legitimate governmental interest of the promotion of morality.”); Windsor, 133 S. Ct. at 2693 (“The House concluded that DOMA expresses ‘both moral disapproval of homosexuality, and a moral conviction that heterosexuality better comports with traditional (especially Judeo–Christian) morality.’”) (quoting H.R. Rep. No. 104-664, 12-13 (1996)).

[61] Lawrence, 539 U.S. at 578-79.

[62] See, e.g., Cass R. Sunstein, What Did Lawrence Hold? Of Autonomy, Desuetude, Sexuality, and Marriage, 55 Sup. Ct. Rev. 27, 45 (2003) (“Was Lawrence based on rational basis review, or instead on something else? It is astonishing but true that this question is exceedingly difficult to answer.”).

[63] Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186, 196 (1986), overruled by Lawrence, 539 U.S. at 560.

[64] 517 U.S. 620, 634 (1996).

[65] Lawrence, 539 U.S. at 559-60.

[66] Id. at 580 (O’Connor, J., concurring) (internal quotation marks omitted).

[67] Id. at 599 (Scalia, J., dissenting).

[68] Id. at 560 (quoting Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. at 216 (Stevens, J., dissenting)).

[69] United States v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675, 2696 (2013).

[70] Id. at 2696.

[71] Id. at 2706 (Scalia, J., dissenting) (citation omitted).

[72] Obergefell v. Hodges, Nos. 14–556, 14–562, 14–571, 14–574, 2015 WL 2473451 (U.S. June 26, 2015).

[73] Id.

[74] Id. (Roberts, C.J., dissenting). See John Hart Ely, The Wages of Crying Wolf: A Comment on Roe v. Wade, 82 Yale L. J. 920, 944 (1973) (coining the term “Lochnering” to describe the constitutionalization of judicial policy preferences).

[75] Obergefell, 2015 WL 2473451 (Roberts, C.J., dissenting).

[76] See, e.g., Ian Bartrum, The Ninth Circuit's Treatment of Sexual Orientation: Defining "Rational Basis Review with Bite," 112 Mich. L. Rev. First Impressions 142, 145-46 (2014). See also Gunther, supra at note 32, at 18-19 (arguing that several “minimal scrutiny” cases applied a standard with “bite”).

[77] See Pettinga, supra note 34, at 779-80.

[78] Laurence H. Tribe, Lawrence v. Texas: The "Fundamental Right" That Dare Not Speak Its Name, 117 Harv. L. Rev. 1893 (2004).

[79] See, e.g., Witt v. Dep't of Air Force, 527 F.3d 806, 816 (9th Cir. 2008) (“We cannot reconcile what the Supreme Court did in Lawrence with the minimal protections afforded by traditional rational basis review.”).

[80] Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186, 196 (1986), overruled by Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003).

[81] David E. Bernstein, Lochner Era Revisionism, Revised: Lochner and the Origins of Fundamental Rights Constitutionalism, 92 Geo. L. J. 1, 52 (2003).

[82] Randy E. Barnett, Justice Kennedy's Libertarian Revolution: Lawrence v. Texas, 2003 Cato Sup. Ct. Rev. 21 (2002-2003). See also Joseph F. Morrissey, Lochner, Lawrence, and Liberty, 27 Ga. St. U. L. Rev. 609, 652 (2011).

[83] Craigmiles v. Giles, 312 F.3d 220, 229 (6th Cir. 2002) (“No sophisticated economic analysis is required to see the pretextual nature of the state's proffered explanations for the 1972 amendment. We are not imposing our view of a well-functioning market on the people of Tennessee. Instead, we invalidate only the General Assembly's naked attempt to raise a fortress protecting the monopoly rents that funeral directors extract from consumers. This measure to privilege certain businessmen over others at the expense of consumers is not animated by a legitimate governmental purpose and cannot survive even rational basis review.”).

[84] Merrifield v. Lockyer, 547 F.3d 978, 991 (9th Cir. 2008) (“Indeed, the record highlights that the irrational singling out of three types of vertebrate pests from all other vertebrate animals was designed to favor economically certain constituents at the expense of others similarly situated, such as Merrifield.”).

[85] St. Joseph Abbey v. Castille, 712 F.3d 215, 223 (5th Cir. 2013), cert. denied, 134 S. Ct. 423, (2013) (“Mindful that a hypothetical rationale, even post hoc, cannot be fantasy, and that the State Board's chosen means must rationally relate to the state interests it articulates, we turn to the State Board's proffered rational bases for the challenged law. Our analysis does not proceed with abstraction for hypothesized ends and means do not include post hoc hypothesized facts.”).

[86] Bruner v. Zawacki, No. 3:12-57-DCR, 2013 WL 2903241 (E.D. Ky. June 13, 2013).

[87] New Orleans v. Dukes, 427 U.S. 297, 305 (1976).

[88] Id. at 306 (“Actually, the reliance on the statute's potential irrationality in Morey v. Doud, as the dissenters in that case correctly pointed out, . . . was a needlessly intrusive judicial infringement on the State's legislative powers, and we have concluded that the equal protection analysis employed in that opinion should no longer be followed. Morey was the only case in the last half century to invalidate a wholly economic regulation solely on equal protection grounds, and we are now satisfied that the decision was erroneous. Morey is, as appellee and the Court of Appeals properly recognized, essentially indistinguishable from this case, but the decision so far departs from proper equal protection analysis in cases of exclusively economic regulation that it should be, and it is, overruled.”) (citing Morey v. Doud, 354 U.S. 457, 474-75 (1957) (citation omitted)).

[89] N. Carolina State Bd. of Dental Exam’rs v. F.T.C., 135 S. Ct. 1101, 1104 (2015).

[90] Id. at 1123.

[91] Golan v. Holder, 132 S. Ct. 873, 875 (2012).

[92] Id.

[93] See generally Schwartz & Treanor, supra note 54.

[94] Id.

[95] See, e.g., Cass R. Sunstein, Lochner's Legacy, 87 Colum. L. Rev. 873, 874 (1987) (“The received wisdom is that Lochner was wrong because it involved ‘judicial activism’: an illegitimate intrusion by the courts into a realm properly reserved to the political branches of government.”).

[96] Letter from Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., to Harold J. Laski (Mar. 4, 1920), in 1 Holmes-Laski Letters: The Correspondence of Mr. Justice Holmes and Harold J. Laski 1916-1935, 248, 249 (Mark DeWolfe Howe ed., Harvard University Press 1953).

[97] N.Y. State Bd. of Elections v. Lopez Torres, 552 U.S. 196, 209 (2008) (Stevens, J., concurring).

[98] Steven Menashi & Douglas H. Ginsburg, Rational Basis With Economic Bite, 8 N.Y.U. J. L. & Liberty 1055, 1086 (2014).

Knowledge is Power: Understanding Kentucky's Human Trafficking Laws

Note | 103 KY. L. J. ONLINE 5 | Apr. 24, 2015

Katie Smith[1]

Introduction

“Human trafficking”—these two words are increasingly onthe radar of political leaders, celebrities, and average citizens across the nation. Over the past decade and a half, leaders and activist groups have begun to decry this “modern day slavery” as a growing evil that must be stopped; however, celebrities who speak out against trafficking or legislatures that unanimously push to pass bills condemning the practice often do little, in reality, to actually prosecute traffickers or to aid victims.[2] The state of Kentucky, however, is somewhat unique. Although it remains unrecognized by many, human trafficking does, in fact, exist in the Commonwealth. Instead of settling for mediocre laws that condemn the evil of trafficking but do little to combat it, the Kentucky legislature has passed some of the strongest legislation in the country to actually take a stand against sex and labor trafficking within our state’s borders.[3]In the spring of 2013, the Kentucky General Assembly successfully passed House Bill 3, the Human Trafficking Victims Rights Act (“HTVRA”).[4] The HTVRA builds upon Kentucky’s existing human trafficking legislation[5] and provides for increased protections for trafficking victims, stronger penalties and prison sentences for traffickers, training for law enforcement, and funding to help victims.[6] The HTVRA passed unanimously through both the Kentucky House and Senate, and its provisions are admirably proactive.[7] In fact, certain provisions of the law are among the most proactive in the country.[8] The passage of legislation, however, is just the beginning. Two years later, the HTVRA continues to be implemented on the ground level throughout the state, and, after early success, leaders expect the law’s effects to continue to be felt in the months and years ahead.[9]Although trafficking victims are often hidden in plain sight, anyone can identify a trafficking victim.[10] Therefore, as law enforcement officers, prosecutors, judges, and the like become increasingly equipped to handle human trafficking cases, it is crucial that all Kentuckians—both lawyers and non-attorneys alike—also become familiar with the protections available to victims, as well as the penalties in place for perpetrators. In the fight against human trafficking, knowledge is power; this brief note, then, seeks to inform both practitioners and the general Commonwealth population of the state of human trafficking in Kentucky, so that everyone can stay informed and help the implementation of the HTVRA continue to succeed.Part I of this note will offer a brief explanation of the global problem of human trafficking and the current federal law on the issue. Part II will describe the trafficking problem specifically in Kentucky. Part III will then explain the recently implemented Kentucky law on human trafficking, walking through key provisions of the Human Trafficking Victims Rights Act, explaining how these new provisions improve upon pre-existing Kentucky law, and describing why Kentucky’s law is unique among the legislation of other states. While much anti-trafficking legislation is toothless, expressive legislation unable to accomplish its goals,[11] Kentucky’s law has some real strengths. We, the lawyers and citizens of the Commonwealth, should now do our part in the fight against human trafficking, arming ourselves with knowledge and awareness and pushing for the continued implementation and support of the HTVRA.

Part I: The Human Trafficking Problem on the Global and Federal Levels

A. What is Human Trafficking?

Human trafficking, or trafficking in persons, essentially refers to the exploitation of an individual through the use of force, fraud, or coercion for the purposes of either commercial sex or labor.[12] Sex trafficking is statutorily defined as “trafficking in which a commercial sex act is induced by force, fraud, or coercion, or in which the person induced to perform such an act has not attained 18 years of age,” while labor trafficking is defined as “the recruitment, harboring, transportation, provision, or obtaining of a person for labor or services, through the use of force, fraud, or coercion for the purpose of subjection to involuntary servitude, peonage, debt bondage, or slavery.”[13]Accurate statistics, as well as a thorough understanding of the extent of the human trafficking problem across the globe, are elusive. Many organizations report that both sex and labor trafficking are increasing dramatically; other scholars note that this may not exactly be the case.[14] Regardless of the exact number of victims throughout the nation or the world, however, it is clear that human trafficking does exist, just about everywhere, in some capacity. And where it does exist, it can be extremely difficult to detect. There is a unique, largely psychological nature to the crime, and traffickers frequently—arguably, primarily—take advantage of vulnerable populations.[15] Many victims from these vulnerable populations are resistant to help from authorities, making it difficult for authorities to obtain information about the trafficking scheme that would aid prosecution and to provide victims with needed assistance and rehabilitation.[16]

B. Trafficking Law at the Federal Level

The United States is considered a Tier I country by the U.S. Department of State because our government fully complies with federally delineated minimum standards for human trafficking elimination.[17] Despite its Tier I status, the United States remains a source, transit, and destination country for both labor and sex trafficking.[18] One national advocacy group suggests that an estimated 100,000 children are victims of sex trafficking in the United States each year and that the aggregate number of child and adult sex and labor trafficking victims reaches well into the hundreds of thousands.[19]The main federal law on human trafficking is the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (“TVPA”), which was passed in 2000.[20] Through the passage of the TVPA, Congress sought to combat trafficking in persons, to ensure punishment of traffickers, and to protect victims.[21] Congress updated and expanded the protections of the TVPA through the 2008 William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Reauthorization Act.[22] This federal legislation is crucial, but not all-sufficient, in the fight against trafficking. Federal trafficking legislation has often proved ineffective, or at least limited, at the local level, and the federal government itself has called upon states to act to fill in the gaps of existing federal efforts.[23]States have responded to the federal government’s call, but the success of state anti-trafficking efforts has not been immediate. After the passage of the 2000 TVPA, many states— including Kentucky—jumped at the chance to pass emotionally charged, bipartisan legislation that would criminalize and condemn trafficking.[24] These early state efforts were admirable; however, ample evidence shows that these bipartisan acts tended to be merely expressive legislation that were rarely as effective as hoped.[25] Since the 2008 William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Reauthorization Act, proactive states across the nation are in the process of updating their trafficking laws to make them more effective. Kentucky is one of those states that has passed a second round of legislation.

Part II: The Human Trafficking Problem in Kentucky

Just like the United States on the whole, Kentucky is described by government reports to be a source, transit, and destination state for human trafficking.[26] Throughout Kentucky, there is no single face of a trafficker. Kentucky traffickers to date include, among others, a woman forcing another to work as her maid;[27] parents selling their two daughters for sex;[28] and pimps setting up prostitution rings during Keeneland meets and the Kentucky Derby, advertising women and possibly children as “fillies” for men to pay to sleep with.[29] Similarly, there is no single face of a Kentucky trafficking victim. While some victims are trafficked in to Kentucky from surrounding states or other countries,[30] trafficking does not always involve transportation across a border.[31] Recent statistics indicate that 35% of victims in Kentucky were identified as foreign nationals, with 64% domestic victims. 59% of victims were identified as children and 41% adults, with 86% of all victims being female and 14% male.[32] Trafficking may seem like an evil that only exists far away or in the shadows, but average Kentuckians can easily encounter it. A quick Google search for “escorts in Eastern Kentucky” reveals numerous websites advertising women all over the state; any woman advertised as twenty-four or younger is likely a minor and a trafficking victim.[33] Further, traffickers consistently target vulnerable populations, and the demographics of the Commonwealth suggest that many Kentucky citizens themselves are at risk for becoming trafficking victims.[34]Compiling accurate information about the extent of human trafficking is a problem on the global, domestic, and state levels, so quantifying the number of human trafficking cases in Kentucky has been no small task.[35] A crucial starting step in understanding the extent of human trafficking in Kentucky came in 2007 thanks to Dr. TK Logan, a University of Kentucky professor.[36] Logan’s study, released in July 2007, provided Kentucky with one of the first quantitative measures of its human trafficking problem.[37]In response to growing awareness of existing trafficking problems, Kentucky adopted its first human trafficking legislation in 2007.[38] Kentucky was the twenty-eighth state in the nation to pass an anti-trafficking law.[39] This legislation, Senate Bill 43, made participation in human trafficking a felony offense and provided certain protections for trafficking victims, such as freedom from incarceration, the right to counseling, and the right to an interpreter.[40] Passage of the 2007 legislation was a success. However, Kentucky legislators soon realized the law lacked the teeth needed to actually combat trafficking. Many people claimed that, among other problems, law enforcement lacked adequate training to handle the crimes the 2007 legislation set out to establish.[41] Overall, the 2007 legislation helped get human trafficking on the Commonwealth’s radar but remained little more than expressive legislation. Legal changes were clearly needed for Kentucky to actually combat the sex and labor trafficking within our state.In response to the recognized shortcomings of the 2007 legislation, human trafficking victims’ rights advocates and legislators joined together to push for the passage of House Bill 3, the Human Trafficking Victims Rights Act, in the spring of 2013.[42] The HTVRA successfully passed both the House and the Senate and was signed into law by Governor Beshear that March.[43] The HTVRA saw early success and continues to be implemented on the ground level throughout the state.[44] To keep up this positive trajectory, each and every Kentuckian should be informed on the basic structure of the state’s human trafficking law, particularly on a few key provisions of the HTVRA.

Part III: Understanding the Human Trafficking Victims Rights Act

While the HTVRA made various changes to existing civil and criminal statutes and has a wide range of implications for human trafficking law in Kentucky, the Act can essentially be described as having four main components. The Act (1) mandates human trafficking education for law enforcement and prosecutors likely to encounter trafficking; (2) calls for trauma-informed care for victims and establishes a specific victim’s assistance fund; (3) creates new financial disincentives for traffickers; and (4) establishes a uniquely comprehensive safe harbor law to ensure victims are given treatment rather than jail time.[45] Having a basic grasp on these four provisions and continuing to push for their implementation can help us as the collective Commonwealth of Kentucky see a decrease in the evils of human trafficking throughout our state.

A. Training and Education for Trafficking Identifiers

A first key provision of the HTVRA focuses on increased education about the existence of human trafficking and victim identification. The HTVRA requires that those most likely to encounter trafficking cases and victims be given specific training regarding trafficking.[46] Prior to the HTVRA, Kentucky law enforcement officials already received specific training for situations involving abuse against the elderly, domestic violence and child abuse, HIV/AIDS, and bias-related crime.[47] Now after the HTVRA, law enforcement officers will be given specific training regarding the characteristics and dynamics of human trafficking and will be instructed in both state and federal trafficking law.[48] Law enforcement will also be trained to investigate potential trafficking cases, with instruction regarding how to screen potential trafficking victims and what resources are available to those victims.[49] The HTVRA further calls for the Attorney General to provide similar training for Commonwealth’s attorneys, county attorneys, and their staffs.[50] These “educational provisions” are designed to ensure that those people in Kentucky most likely to encounter trafficking are able to successfully recognize the crime when they see it. Ideally, these provisions will contribute to an increase in positive identification of traffickers, so that they can be prosecuted for their crimes, and of victims, so that they can be treated according to their specific trauma and needs.

B. Trauma-Informed Care for Victims

Another main emphasis of the HTVRA is trauma-informed care for victims. Victims of human trafficking undergo particular psychological and emotional harm that is distinct from the harm many other crime victims experience.[51] Many believe that, in order to bring holistic healing to human trafficking victims, they must be treated specifically as trafficking victims rather than victims of other forms of abuse or neglect.[52] Accordingly, the HTVRA establishes the Human Trafficking Victims Fund to provide better trauma-informed care. The Fund is to be comprised in part of monies from grants, contributions, and donations.[53] It will also be made up of monies collected as a result of successful state trafficking prosecutions—a portion of all assets seized and forfeited from traffickers will go to the Fund,[54] as well as a $10,000 fee that all trafficking convicts must now pay into the Fund.[55] Often, anti-trafficking legislation does not provide any financial support for achieving its desired outcomes;[56] the HTVRA, however, does provide a mechanism for financially achieving the goal of treating victims—and treating them in the ways they need to be treated—through this Victims Fund.[57]

C. Financial Disincentives for Traffickers

A third emphasis of the HTVRA is the financial disincentives it creates for traffickers through its newly imposed $10,000 fine and asset forfeiture provision. The HTVRA allows law enforcement to seize the assets of traffickers used in connection with the trafficking offense. All property used in connection with or acquired from trafficking will be seized, forfeited, and distributed among the Human Trafficking Victims Fund, the related law enforcement agency, and the attorney’s office responsible for handling the forfeiture.[58] Also, all convicted traffickers must now automatically pay $10,000 into the Victims Fund, regardless of any other charges or fines involved with their convictions.[59]Ideally, these provisions will be a financial disincentive for traffickers above and beyond the disincentive of potential convictions. The $10,000 fee that traffickers must pay into the victims’ assistance fund upon conviction is no small sum. This fee may be little deterrence to a powerful pimp leading multiple, well-established prostitution rings, but it may deter an individual who engages in trafficking simply for a little extra cash.[60] The asset seizure provision, on the other hand, should deter both the small-scale and the large-scale trafficker. Individuals with no history of trafficking who operate out of their homes may not want to risk their homes, and traffickers exploiting on a larger scale would, in turn, have larger amounts of property subject to seizure and forfeiture. The value of forfeitable property – defined as “all property used in connection with or acquired as a result of . . .” the trafficking – could be quite large for any one trafficker, making this HTVRA provision a notable financial disincentive for all potential traffickers.[61]Importantly, these financial disincentive provisions will also help maintain the Human Trafficking Victims Fund, so that victims can receive the trauma-informed treatment that they need.[62]

D. Safe Harbor Protection for Minors

While the HTVRA involves various additional changes to Kentucky law,[63] a final and particularly crucial piece of the legislation is its safe harbor provision, designed to ensure that human trafficking victims are in fact treated as victims rather than criminals. While federal law recognizes the prostitution of a child as human trafficking, many states still do not have legal protections for minor victims; in such states, child victims are often treated as “criminals or delinquents.”[64] Leading anti-trafficking advocates recognize this as an important problem and have called on states to pass so-called “safe harbor” bills, legislation protecting minor victims from criminal charges.[65] Kentucky’s HTVRA includes a comprehensive safe harbor provision. The law prohibits prosecution of anyone under the age of eighteen for prostitution or loitering for prostitution.[66] The law also ensures that victims will not be charged with any status offenses, such as runaway or truancy, related to their trafficking.[67] At the time of its passage, this provision was the most protective safe harbor law of any state in the United States.[68]

Part IV: Conclusion

Although determining the extent of sex and labor trafficking throughout Kentucky is difficult, human trafficking clearly exists throughout the Commonwealth, sometimes in the shadows of a private household[69] and sometimes right in the midst of the public spotlight at Keeneland or at Churchill Downs.[70] Kentucky is in a good place, however, in the global fight against human trafficking. Where Kentucky’s original anti-trafficking legislation was too weak to effectuate actual results, the HTVRA contains comprehensive provisions and fundraising mechanisms that bode well for the law’s continued success. Both lawyers and non-lawyers alike throughout the Commonwealth help ensure the success of the law by staying informed. Understanding some general information about trafficking in Kentucky as well as the key provisions of the HTVRA is one small step we can take to help protect all people within our state’s borders from sex and labor slavery.

---

[1] University of Kentucky College of Law, J.D. May 2015.

[2] See Dina Haynes, When Human Trafficking Becomes a Cause Celebre, Open Democracy (Oct. 6, 2014), https://www.opendemocracy.net/beyondslavery/dina-haynes/when-human-traff… (explaining the drawbacks of celebrity trafficking activism); Priscila A. Rocha, Our Backyard Slave Trade: The Result of Ohio’s Failure to Enact Comprehensive State-Level Human Sex-Trafficking Legislation, 25 J.L. & Health 381, 407 (2012) (explaining how human-rights legislation that is quickly and emotionally passed with bipartisan support often succeeds in criminalizing a particular abuse but lacks a real plan for funding and implementation).

[3] Polaris Project, 2013 Analysis of State Human Trafficking Laws 1-3 (2013), available at http://www.polarisproject.org/storage/2013-Analysis-Category-6-Safe-Harb… (noting that Kentucky is one of twelve states that comply with the full recommendations for the safe harbor and that Kentucky also has a funding provision in place, allowing it to serve as a model for other states).

[4] Human Trafficking Victims Rights Act, 2013 Ky. Acts 25, available at http://www.lrc.ky.gov/record/13rs/HB3.htm.

[5] See Ky. Justice & Safety Ctr., Human Trafficking in the Commonwealth of Kentucky 8 (2007), available athttp://justice.ky.gov/Documents/Statistical%20Analysis/HumanTrafficking2.

[6] See, e.g., Press Release, Governor Steve Beshear’s Commc’ns Office, Governor Beshear Signs Human Trafficking Bill (Mar. 26, 2013), available athttp://migration.kentucky.gov/newsroom/governor/20130326hb3.htm.

[7] See Human Trafficking Victims Rights Act, 2013 Ky. Acts 25.

[8] See Analysis of State Human Trafficking Laws, supra note 3, at 1-3. See also discussion of the HTVRA’s safe harbor, infra Part III.B.

[9] See Rescue & Restore, Module 003 LAW, https://vimeo.com/99576107.

[10] Ky. Rescue & Restore Coal., Identifying Victims of Human Trafficking Fact Sheet 1 (“Everyone can play a role in identifying victims of human trafficking . . . One chance encounter could be a victim’s best hope for rescue.”), available at http://www.rescueandrestoreky.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/KY-Rescue-R.

[11] For an explanation of the problem of expressive human trafficking legislation, see Mark Sidel, Richard B. Lillich Memorial Lecture: New Directions in the Struggle Against Human Trafficking, 17 J. Transnat’l L. & Pol’y 187, 201-03 (2008); Rocha, supra note 2, at 440.

[12] Gretchen M. Hunt, Human Trafficking: A Primer for Kentucky Lawyers, Bench & Bar, July 2009, at 17.

[13] Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1589-1594, 22 U.S.C. §§ 7101-7110 (West, Westlaw through P.L. 113-182). See also U.S. Dep’t of State, Trafficking in Persons Report 8 (2013) (Introductory Material) [hereinafter “Trafficking Report Introductory Material”], available athttp://www.state.gov/documents/organization/210737.pdf.

[14] See Ronald Weitzer, Sex Trafficking and the Sex Industry: The Need for Evidence-Based Theory and Legislation, 101 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 1337, 1347-1356 (2012).

[15] See, e.g., Rescue & Restore, Module 003 LAW, https://vimeo.com/99576107.

[16] Trafficking Report Introductory Material, supra note 13, at 8-9.

[17] The Trafficking Victims Protection Act, supra note 13, sets forth federal standards for the elimination of human trafficking. The United States meets Tier I standards, but trafficking throughout the country still exists. U.S. Dept. of State, Trafficking in Persons Report 44, 381 (2013) (Country Narratives T-Z) [hereinafter “Trafficking Report Country Narratives”], available at http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/210742.pdf.

[18] Id. at 381.

[19] Polaris Project, Human Trafficking, http://www.polarisproject.org/human-trafficking/overview (last visited Apr. 16, 2015). But see Weitzer, supra note 14 (explaining that many advocacy organizations’ statistics appear inflated).

[20] Polaris Project, Human Trafficking Cheat Sheet 1 (2012); Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1589-1594, 22 U.S.C. §§ 7101-7110 (West, Westlaw through P.L. 113-182).

[21] 22 U.S.C. § 7101 (West, Westlaw through P.L. 113-296).

[22] William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008, Pub. L. No. 110-457, 122 Stat. 5044 (codified as amended in scattered sections of 22 U.S.C.).

[23] Rocha, supra note 2, at 428-30. See also Stephanie L. Mariconda, Breaking the Chains: Combating Trafficking at the State Level, 29 B.C. Third World L.J. 151, 174-77 (2009).

[24] Rocha, supra note 2, at 441.

[25] Mark Sidel, Richard B. Lillich Memorial Lecture: New Directions in the Struggle Against Human Trafficking, 17 J. Transnat’l L. & Pol’y 187, 201-03 (2008).

[26] Trafficking Report Country Narratives, supra note 17, at 381; Ky. Justice & Safety Ctr., supra note 5, at 10.

[27] Maria Castellanos & Gretchen Hunt, Family Court Presentation: Human Trafficking in Kentucky 45 (2013).

[28] Castellanos & Hunt, supra note 27, at 49.

[29] Joe Arnold, LMPD: Prostitution Triples, Sex Trafficking a Concern at Derby Time, WHAS11 Louisville (Apr. 29, 2013, 11:11 PM EDT), http://www.whas11.com/story/news/local/2014/10/14/15755392/.

[30] Kentucky Rescue & Restore Coalition, Victims of Human Trafficking March 2014 Fact Sheet 1 (2014) [hereinafter March 2014 Fact Sheet], available athttp://www.rescueandrestoreky.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/KY-Rescue-R.

[31] Polaris Project, Human Trafficking Cheat Sheet 1 (2012). Human trafficking and human smuggling are two different things. Smuggling involves an individual paying a fee to willingly be transported illegally across the United States border. Human trafficking may begin with a smuggling situation; an individual may pay to be transported into the United States, and, upon arrival, the smuggler may hold the individual captive or require him to work. But human trafficking does not require that an individual cross a border or that any movement take place at all. Hunt, supra note 12, at 18.

[32] March 2014 Fact Sheet, supra note 30, at 1.

[33] See Jack Latta, Conference on Human Trafficking Opens Eyes, The Floyd County Times, (July 18, 2013, 7:19 PM), http://www.floydcountytimes.com/view/full_story/20762482/article-confere.

[34] Castellanos & Hunt, supra note 27, at 10. For general information about poverty in Kentucky, see Valarie Honeycutt Spears & Linda J. Johnson, Kentucky’s 2012 Poverty Rate Increased to 19.4 Percent, Lexington Herald-Leader (Sept. 19, 2013), http://www.kentucky.com/2013/09/19/2831627/kentuckys-2012-poverty-rate-i…. The Commonwealth’s overall poverty rate increased from 17.6% in 2011 to 18.3 in 2012, and child poverty increased from 23.5% in 2008 to 26.5% in 2012.

[35] Human trafficking can be extremely difficult to detect, largely because of the unique nature of the crime. Traffickers constantly adapt their tactics and take advantage of excluded, vulnerable populations. Many victims from these vulnerable populations are resistant to help from authorities, making it difficult for authorities to provide victims with needed assistance and rehabilitation and also difficult to obtain information about the trafficking scheme that could be useful for identification and prosecution. See Trafficking Report Introductory Material, supra note 13, at 8-9.

[36] See generally TK Logan, Human Trafficking in Kentucky (2007), available at http://www.cdar.uky.edu/coercivecontrol/docs/hands%20presentation%20fina…) (describing the existence of human trafficking in Kentucky via PowerPoint presentation on June 2007).

[37] Ky. Justice & Safety Ctr., supra note 5, at 12 (2007).

[38] Id. at 8.

[39] Id.

[40] Id.

[41] Rae Hodge, Human Trafficking by the Numbers, Louisville Cardinal (Jan. 23, 2013), http://www.louisvillecardinal.com/2013/01/human-trafficking-numbers-kent.

[42] Human Trafficking Victims Rights Act, 2013 Ky. Acts 25.

[43] See, e.g., Press Release, Governor Steve Beshear’s Commc’n Office, Governor Beshear Signs Human Trafficking Bill (Mar. 26, 2013), available athttp://migration.kentucky.gov/newsroom/governor/20130326hb3.htm.

[44] See, e.g., Rescue & Restore, Module 003 LAW (July 2014), https://vimeo.com/99576107; Valarie Honeycutt Spears, Report: Kentucky Authorities Investigated 20 Allegations of Child Human Trafficking, Lexington Herald-Leader (Dec. 8, 2013), http://www.kentucky.com/2013/12/08/2978313_report-kentucky-authorities-i.

[45] Human Trafficking Victims Rights Act, 2013 Ky. Acts 25.

[46] Id.

[47] Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 15.334(1)(a)-(d) (West, Westlaw through 2014 legislation).

[48] Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 15.334(1)(e) (West, Westlaw through 2014 legislation).

[49] Id.

[50] Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 15.718(1) (West, Westlaw through 2014 legislation).

[51] Ky. Rescue & Restore Coal., Identifying Victims of Human Trafficking Fact Sheet 2.

[52] See Polaris Project, Human Trafficking Legislative Issue Brief: Sex Trafficking of Minors and “Safe Harbor” 1, available athttp://www.polarisproject.org/storage/documents/policy_documents/model%2… (last visited Apr.. 17, 2015) (“Experienced practitioners have found that mainstream programs of the child abuse and neglect system routinely fail these children. The law should require specialized protection and recovery programs for child victims . . . .”).

[53] Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 529.140(2) (West, Westlaw through 2014 legislation).

[54] Id. See also Ky Rev. Stat. Ann. § 529.150(1) (West, Westlaw through 2014 legislation) (articulating asset seizure and forfeiture). The HTVRA’s asset forfeiture provision will be explained in greater detail below. See infra Part III.C.

[55] Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 529.130 (West, Westlaw through 2014 legislation).

[56] See Rocha, supra note 2, at 406-07.

[57] Because Kentucky’s anti-trafficking legislation has a funding mechanism, the Polaris Project advocacy group has indicated that Kentucky’s legislation serves as a good model for other states. See Analysis of State Human Trafficking Laws, supra note 3, at 1-3.

[58] Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 529.150(2)(a)-(c) (West, Westlaw through 2014 legislation).

[59] Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 529.130 (West, Westlaw through 2014 legislation).

[60] In Hodgenville, Kentucky, in December 2010, a woman sold her fifteen year old foster daughter to a man “in exchange for money, and buying items for her house.” The case involved two human trafficking indictments that were later amended down. Castellanos & Hunt, supra note 27, at 48.

[61] Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 529.150(1) (West, Westlaw through 2014 legislation).

[62] Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 529.150(2)(a) (West, Westlaw through 2014 legislation).

[63] For a more detailed summary of the HTVRA, see Kentucky Association of Sexual Assault Programs, Summary of HB 3 Human Trafficking Victims Rights Act (2013), available at http://www.kasap.org/images/files/News/HouseBill%203_KentuckyHumanTraffi…. For a complete understanding of the 2013 legislation’s amendments to previous human trafficking law, see the legislation itself. Human Trafficking Victims Rights Act, 2013 Ky. Acts 25.

[64] Human Trafficking Legislative Issue Brief: Sex Trafficking of Minors and “Safe Harbor”, supra note 52 at 1.

[65] Id.

[66] Ky Rev. Stat. Ann. § 29.120(1) (West, Westlaw through 2014 legislation); Castellanos & Hunt, supra note 27, at 27.

[67] Ky Rev. Stat. Ann. § 630.125 (West, Westlaw through 2014 legislation).

[68] New York was the first state to enact a safe harbor law in 2008. New York’s original watershed law guaranteed there could be no prosecution of anyone under the age of sixteen for prostitution; Kentucky’s law goes further to raise the age to eighteen and to prohibit prosecution for status offenses in addition to prostitution. SeeKaren Wigle Weiss, End Child Prostitution And Trafficking USA, A Review of the New York State Safe Harbor Law 2 (2013), available athttps://d2jug8yyubo3yl.cloudfront.net/26999B2F-7C10-4962-918C-E964709E74…. “Kentucky is the only state to ensure that all child victims of human trafficking are not charged with prostitution or status offenses committed in connection to being trafficked.” Commonwealth of KY. Cabinet for Health and Family Serv., Annual Report of Kentucky Child Victims of Human Trafficking 5 (2013), available at http://chfs.ky.gov/NR/rdonlyres/E5D47613-6922-44C6-8B14-0668374ADD93/0/H.

[69] Castellanos & Hunt, supra note 27, at 45.

[70] Arnold, supra note 29.

Not for Human Consumption: How Inept Legislative Policy Proliferates the Synthetic Drug Problem

Note | 103 KY. L. J. ONLINE 3 | Feb. 22, 2015

Todd J. Weatherholt[1]

The "war on drugs"[2] is facing a new opponent, one that is sophisticated and dynamic, but unfortunately whose dangers go widely undocumented.[3] As if there were not enough problems with other classes of drugs for authorities, a new "underappreciated" category - synthetic drugs - has gained tremendous momentum within the last few years in the United States and around the world.[4] These substances, although widely eradicated in neighborhood gas stations and head shops, remain easily obtainable over the internet.[5] The industry, which targets drug-naïve teenagers and young adults through the combination of shiny packaging with familiar cartoon characters and vibrant names such as Ivory Wave, Spice, and Cloud Nine, generates an estimated $5 billion dollars annually.[6] Unfortunately, the synthetic drug enigma facing our nation is not merely the result of these products’ accessibility, but likewise due to their easily manipulative characteristics, which help manufacturers circumvent existing laws.[7] As authorities identify specific chemical components to outlaw, rudimentary chemists simply modify existing drug compositions slightly to escape the law.[8]This note focuses on the two-tier problem of controlling synthetic drugs, from the existing loophole in the federal drug policy, to the difficulty of prosecuting synthetic drug offenders. Synthetic drugs pose an increasingly severe threat in need of an updated 21st century drug policy, instead of a continued reliance on deficient existing laws based on regulating opium, heroin, and cocaine from plants.[9] Part I of this Note discusses two common types of synthetic drugs and the current overall drug policy landscape in the United States. Part II focuses on the rise in popularity of these substances and their potentially disastrous effects on users. Part III, utilizing a recent federal court case and textual uncertainties of the statute, identifies the difficulties surrounding prosecuting manufacturers of synthetic drugs under the existing drug policy. Lastly, Part IV advocates for two promising bills and provides additional modifications that will further assist in improving the synthetic drug problem facing our nation.

I. Background: the Composition, Existing Policy, and Recent Trends of Synthetic Drugs

A. Categories of Synthetic Drugs

In terms of regulation, synthetic drugs fall into two prohibited categories: Cannabinoids and Cathinoes.[10] Although different in effects and chemical formations, problems with these synthetic drugs are similar; therefore, after an initial discussion of each, these categories are synthesized for purposes of this Note. The first category, Synthetic Cannabinoids, initially detected in the U.S. in 2008,[11] are chemicals that mimic the effects of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the primary psychoactive active ingredient in marijuana.[12] The popularity of these substances was fueled by not only their desired effects, but also the mistaken assumption that they were "legal,"[13] yet the composition of these drugs may be anywhere from two to more than 500 times stronger than regular THC.[14] The second category, Synthetic Cathinoes, commonly referred to as "bath salts" have also risen in popularity in American culture and are dangerous for consumers of the drugs, as well as the authorities regulating their use.[15] Most of these stimulants contain the chemical compounds MDPV (3, 4-methylenedioxypyrovalerone), mephedrone (4-methylmethcathinone), or methylone (3, 4-methylenedioxymethcathinone),[16] which mimic the effects of cocaine, LSD, and methamphetamine.[17] Both synthetic substances can have severe adverse effects, including panic attacks, agitation, tachycardia, elevated blood pressure, anxiety, pallor, numbness and tingling, vomiting, hallucinations, and even death.[18] At least in part, both categories of "designer drugs" remain obtainable in today’s global marketplace.[19] These substances mimic the effects of perceived "harder drugs," yet their effects go widely undocumented due to their manipulative characteristics.[20] For example, the pharmacology, toxicology, and safety knowledge of the compounds used to form synthetic marijuana are practically unknown.[21] Recent studies suggest that components of bath salts are even more addictive than methamphetamine.[22]

B. Existing Drug Policy

1. Scheduling of Drugs-- Under the Controlled Substance Act of 1970 (CSA), drugs and certain chemicals that are considered to be controlled substances are divided into categories of scheduling.[23] In order to determine the placement of a controlled substance, a number of factors are considered including: its actual or relative potential for abuse, pharmacological effects, history and current pattern for abuse, risks to the public health, dependence issues, and whether it is an immediate precursor of a substance already controlled.[24] The CSA recognizes five schedules, with Schedule I being the most restrictive.[25] Considered the most dangerous class of drugs, a controlled substance placed into Schedule I has no acceptable medical usage and possesses a high potential for abuse and dependence.[26] Examples of Schedule I substances are LSD, Heroin, and Ecstasy.[27] On the other hand, a Schedule V substance has a lower potential for abuse.[28] Once scheduled, it is illegal "to manufacture, distribute, or dispense, or possess with intent to manufacture, distribute, or dispense, a controlled substance."[29] However, as authorities soon discovered, slightly modifying a substance, even by a couple of molecules, theoretically circumvents the scheduling process altogether because it creates a new substance with different properties and effects.[30]2. Federal Analogue Act-- In 1986, Congress enacted the Controlled Substance Analogue Enforcement Act ("Analogue Act")[31] in response to drug manufacturer’s ability to produce and distribute designer drugs.[32] This Act amended part of the CSA which failed to account for minor alterations to the molecular structure of controlled substances – by outlawing their analogues.[33] However, by incorporating imprecise and overly broad standards, this law created confusion for prosecutors and presented many unnecessary challenges.[34] Unfortunately, as cases and textual discussion will show, this law has presented interpretive and evidentiary problems causing divisions throughout the courts. Revisions to this Act are necessary to enable prosecutors to successfully put procedures in place that combat the proliferating synthetic drug problem.3. Synthetic Drug Abuse Prevention Act-- Due to newfound synthetic drug popularity and ineffective solutions, President Barack Obama signed the Synthetic Drug Abuse Prevention Act (SDAPA) into law on July 9, 2013, as part of the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act.[35] Although this law permanently placed twenty-six types of synthetic drugs into Schedule I of the CSA, expanded the timeframe of temporary scheduling, and, in theory, banned substances containing "any quantity of cannabimimetic agents,"[36] it was far too narrow to have any meaningful impact. Like other inept drug policies, this law anticipates that all substances will be "cannabimimetic agents" of scheduled substances. However, this presumption is erroneous due to the rapid evolution of synthetic drugs. As it stands now, synthetic drug production is a never-ending game of cat and mouse – where manufacturers make, and purchasers consume, substances that mimic the effects of a Schedule I or II drug, lawmakers ban the specific substance, and manufacturers slightly modify its chemical structure in order to circumvent the law.[37] In essence, the SDAPA and other similarly worded statutes banning specific chemical substances are, and will always be, one-step behind the chemists who create these menacing substances, until the necessary changes in policy and legislation occur.

II. The Menace of Synthetic Drugs

Synthetic drugs have exploded onto the scene in recent years, with new chemically altered forms arriving practically on a daily basis.[38] According to the American Association of Poison Control Centers, in the last four years alone over 27,500 cases of human exposure to forms of synthetic drugs have been reported.[39] These substances are extremely tempting for those who want to try marijuana or other banned substances, but are afraid of the related legal consequences.[40] Yet, as these next few stories illustrate, synthetic drugs are anything but safe, and their effects can lead to dangerous situations, including death. Even in states that have enacted tough legislative policies on synthetic drugs, manufacturers are still reaching their targeted audiences. In Florida, where a severe crackdown on synthetic drugs has occurred,[41] one story in particular exhibits the potentially severe side effects of bath salts. One night, Mr. Dubois and his friends snorted bath salts in an effort to experience a legal "trip".[42] However, their decision went terribly wrong – ending in a fatality and an eight-year prison sentence. When police showed up to Mr. Dubois’ house, they saw one "young man in the front yard reaching for objects in the air that weren't there, grunting, convulsing, and seemed to be in a zombie state of mind," while another person was found wrapped up so tightly in a cord that she could not move and was convulsing.[43] This situation is one of many that law enforcement agents have encountered over the past few years in response to incidents involving synthetic drugs. Two other separate, yet extreme examples display that any number of absurd events are possible after using synthetic drugs. In each case, the individual is believed to have ingested a type of synthetic substance and then exhibited zombie-like actions: one man ate his forty-pound dog[44] and another chewed the face off of a homeless man.[45] While these tales of terror seem to make daily headlines, the fact remains that existing drug policies impede efforts to prosecute synthetic drug manufacturers, allowing their products to remain available.

III. Textual and Case Analysis Highlighting the Difficulties of Prosecuting Under the Analogue Act

A. Analogue Act Textual Uncertainties

The Analogue Act was intended to fix the problems associated with the rule-based CSA, but, instead, has become an obstacle for prosecutors. Typically, drug convictions are procured through lab reports that show the purported substance is scheduled.[46] But, as recent years have shown, simply altering one molecule of a controlled substance moves it out of the dominion of the CSA and into the purview of the analogue statute.[47] The Analogue Act at first blush seems to provide a reliable solution for the manipulation of controlled substances through the implementation of standard-based methods defining a controlled substances analogue as:

(i) the chemical structure of which is substantially similar to the chemical structure of a controlled substance in schedule I or II;

(ii) which has a stimulant, depressant, or hallucinogenic effect on the central nervous system that is substantially similar to or greater than the stimulant, depressant, or hallucinogenic effect on the central nervous system of a controlled substance in schedule I or II; or

(iii) with respect to a particular person, which such person represents or intends to have a stimulant, depressant, or hallucinogenic effect on the central nervous system that is substantially similar to or greater than the stimulant, depressant, or hallucinogenic effect on the central nervous system of a controlled substance in schedule I or II.[48]

But, as the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit stated in United States v. Turcotte, "the devil is in the details — the relevant detail here being the single word ‘or’ between clauses (ii) and (iii) of the definition," allowing for a disjunctive or conjunctive reading of the statute.[49] Under the disjunctive approach, "a substance that satisfies any one" of the clauses "qualifies as a controlled substances analogue."[50] Alternately, in the conjunctive approach, clause I is required, while either clause II or clause III must also be present.[51] Although this language of the statute seems ambiguous, a majority of courts have adopted the conjunctive approach, reasoning that ridiculous results might arise under the disjunctive approach.[52] If the disjunctive versus conjunctive reading was the only uncertainty of the statute, it would seem salvageable, but other imprecisions and broad terminology show the inherit flaws of the Analogue Act. The definition of a controlled substance analogue states in clause I that the substance’s chemical structure must be "substantially similar" to that of a controlled substance,[53] begging the question, what does "substantially similar" actually mean? Courts have wrestled with how much similarity must be present; some requiring either a "core arrangement of atoms,"[54] similar pharmacological effects on the central nervous system,[55] or looking at the overall chain of the structure.[56] This discrepancy in how courts approach what constitutes "substantially similar", along with the inexcusable continued reliance on the phrase "not for human consumption" from § 813,[57] displays the problems associated with the text of the statute that must be corrected.

B. Prosecutorial Impediments Involved During Analogue Cases

In addition to textual imperfections, prosecutors can also have a difficult time establishing expert testimony in analogue cases. In the recent case United States v. Nasir, the defendant was charged with possession with intent to distribute synthetic marijuana containing the chemical AM 2201, an alleged analogue of JWH-018, a scheduled substance.[58] The prosecution offered expert testimony from Dr. Michelle Walker, a DEA pharmacologist, who assessed several studies to conclude "AM 2201 was substantially similar pharmacologically and in physiological effect to JWH-018."[59] The defense attacked her conclusion using their own expert testimony which stated that the comparisons between AM 2201 and JWH-018 had not been properly peer-reviewed and were conducted on rodents, not humans.[60] The court, noting its gatekeeping authority, stated that it was the jury’s responsibility to determine the weight of this evidence, and that the court merely determined the admissibility of the evidence.[61] The court concluded that the expert’s findings were admissible, stating that "[p]ublication in a peer-reviewed journal is not required,"[62] and criticisms of the reliance on studies performed on rodents were not sufficient to warrant the exclusion of Dr. Walker’s testimony.[63] Other courts have not been so receptive to offered expert testimony on the issue,[64] partly due to the limited scientific knowledge available to establish concrete evidence of analogues, as well as the textual imprecisions of the statute, which leaves prosecutors fighting a losing battle.

IV. Bringing Drug Policy Into the 21st century

A. Proposed Bills and Lingering Problems

This past year, two proposed bills, the Synthetic Abuse and Labeling of Toxic Substances Act of 2013 (SALTS Act)[65] and Protecting Our Youth from Dangerous Synthetic Drugs Act of 2013,[66] took progressive steps towards controlling the synthetic drug problem facing our nation. These bills examine the overly broad and imprecise language of the CSA, striking and adding portions of the existing law, in essence closing the loophole for synthetic drug manufacturers. However, these two bills are analogous to merely warning shots against the synthetic drug industry and further reform is necessary. In its definition section, the CSA specifically states that a controlled substance analogue of a scheduled drug does not include any substances that are "not intended for human consumption."[67] As expected, synthetic drugs intentionally are mislabeled with a warning that they are not for human consumption, sidestepping the law, even though all parties involved know the intended purpose of these products is for human consumption. The proposed SALTS Act amends this portion, making it clear that evidence of a product not being marketed, advertised, or labeled for human consumption, by itself, is not sufficient to establish that the substance was not intended for human consumption.[68] Additionally, the bill mentions several factors that should be considered in determining whether an analogue was intended for human consumption.[69] The SALTS Act’s sister bill, the Protecting Our Youth from Dangerous Synthetic Drugs Act of 2013, likewise would re-work portions of the CSA.[70] This bill proposes creating a Controlled Substance Analogue Committee (CSAC) comprised of a panel of scientists headed by the Administrator of the DEA, including experts from multiple health and drug agencies,[71] bearing the responsibility to compile and maintain a list of all emerging synthetic drugs and designate substances as analogues.[72] This bill also implores the U.S. Sentencing Commission to review current federal sentencing guidelines and to amend them appropriately by providing adequate penalties for offenses related to controlled substance analogues.[73] Utilizing appropriate care and foresight, these remedial bills provide an important step in the fight against synthetic drugs, yet further efforts are needed to tackle other glaring issues of existing drug policy. Even if conclusive evidence is produced that a synthetic drug was intended for human consumption, a prosecutor still must prove that the chemical and pharmacological characteristics of the analogue are "substantially similar" to that of a controlled substance.[74] If prosecutors can only bring cases on substances that the CSAC has already identified as "substantially similar" to a scheduled substance, this will severely limit their ability to bring cases on unknown or untested substances. A clear and concise definition of what exactly "substantially similar" means is vital, considering the interpretational vagueness of the CSA, not only for prosecutors’ sake, but also for jurors who are expected to understand cases involving complex synthetic drugs without sufficient guidance from the law. Courts have struggled to determine what exactly "substantially similar" means, having applied different definitions across jurisdictions.[75] Additionally, as one expert stated in Brown, "the definition of ‘similar chemical structure’ depends on the judgment of a chemist," and if "six chemists were asked . . . then six different answers may be offered."[76] In dealing with this peculiar term, the court in Washam offered an important point, stating that:

The term "substantially similar," as used in the statute, does not mean "exactly the same." There obviously will be differences in chemical structures between an "analogue" chemical and a schedule I or II chemical. If two chemicals' structures are exactly the same, the chemical in question would no longer be an "analogue," but, instead, it would be the same chemical as the listed chemical. Thus, some level of difference is acceptable between an analogue's chemical structure and a proscribed chemical's structure.[77]

The specific meaning of the definition appears unanswered by the courts, with at least one court believing that "’substantially similar’ is flexible enough to change with the circumstances."[78] However, the most promising and best-suited definition looks not at the visual assessment of chemical structures – such as with a chain or assortment of atoms - but, rather, at the actual effects of the substance on the central nervous system.[79] As the court in Fisher described, to ingest a substance considered an analogue would have a detrimental and visible effect on the central nervous system and "[p]eople of ordinary intelligence would easily be able to determine" if such a substance met "the definition of a controlled substance analogue."[80] This definition makes sense considering manufacturers want to reproduce the effects of desired scheduled substances without facing the legal consequences. Prosecutors of synthetic drug cases, not to mention jurors, need a concise definition of "substantially similar." They should look no further than a substance’s effects on the central nervous system instead of a substance’s atomic structure, which explains little on how substances are related. These recommendations would not single-handedly remove every hurdle prosecutors face in synthetic drug cases because expert testimony is often limited by the amount of scientific literature available on the composition of a synthetic drug. It is therefore imperative that lax standards for expert testimony be allowed due to the highly sensitive and dynamic characteristics associated with these cases. In Daubert, the United States Supreme Court gave a non-exhaustive list of factors a judge may consider in determining the reliability of an expert witness’ testimony that includes, but is not limited to:

(1) whether the theory or technique in question can be and has been tested;

(2) whether the theory or technique has been subjected to peer review and publication;

(3) in the case of a particular scientific technique, ... the known or potential rate of error;

(4) the existence and maintenance of standards controlling its operation; and

(5) whether the theory or technique has attracted widespread acceptance within a relevant scientific community.[81]

Given the flexibility of the Daubert test and the inability to conduct studies on the effects on humans of these chemical substances, courts should move to establish precedence that in synthetic drug cases, expert witnesses should be given the benefit of the doubt when reviewing non-conflicting, yet limited supporting material, in order to allow the experts to make generalized findings due to time restraints, cost associated with, and availability of testing procedures.

Conclusion

Synthetic drugs are a complex topic that legislators must respond to in a comprehensive way. Ultimately, as with any category of narcotics, authorities cannot completely eradicate the use of synthetic drugs; however, minimizing their impact is attainable with appropriate policy modifications. An updated twenty-first century drug policy is necessary, which must define the terms and provisions of the CSA more precisely to enable prosecutors to bring these types of cases more easily. Existing drug law is flawed and continuing down this same path will almost certainly allow manufacturers to continue to circumvent the law through molecular modifications.

[1] J.D. May 2015, University of Kentucky College of Law.[2] President Richard Nixon originally coined this term during June of 1971, increasing the size and presence of federal drug control agencies. A Brief History of the Drug War, Drug Policy Alliance, http://www.drugpolicy.org/new-solutions-drug-policy/brief-history-drug-war (last visited March 3, 2014).[3] See generally Lisa N. Sacco & Kristin Finklea, Cong. Research Serv., R42066, Synthetic Drugs: Overview and Issues for Congress 1 (Sept. 16, 2013), available at http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42066.pdf (explaining the recent trend to document dangers stemming from drug use especially in younger populations).[4] Synthetic Drugs (a.k.a. K2, Spice, Bath Salts, etc.), Office of Nat’l Drug Control Pol’y, http://www.whitehouse.gov/ondcp/ondcp-fact-sheets/synthetic-drugs-k2-spice-bath-salts (last visited March 3, 2014) [hereinafter Synthetic Drugs].[5] Stephen Stock & David Paredes, The Law has Trouble Keeping Up with Synthetic Drugs, NBC Bay Area (Feb. 15, 2014, 10:33 PM), http://www.nbcbayarea.com/investigations/The-Law-Cant-Keep-Up-with-Synthetic-Drugs-244805391.html; Synthetic Drugs: Myths, Facts, and Strategies: A Symposium, Substance Abuse Treatment and Mental Health Services Integration Taskforce 9-10 (Feb. 19, 2013), http://cjcc.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/cjcc/page_content/attachments/SD-MFS%20Symposium%20Materials_Part1.pdf [hereinafter Symposium].[6] See Spice, Salvia, and Bath Salts, Nat’l Inst. on Drug Abuse, http://teens.drugabuse.gov/facts-drugs/spice-salvia-and-bath-salts (last visited March 3, 2014); See also Ben Paynter, The Big Business of Synthetic Highs, Bloomberg Bus. Week (June 16, 2011), http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_26/b4234058348635.htm (noting that the sale of "incense" generates close to $5 billion annually as based on self-reported statistics from members of the North American Herbal Incense Trade Association).[7] See, e.g., Sacco & Finklea, supra note 3, at 1.[8] Id. [9] Howard B. Owens, From China White to Bath Salts, Designer Drugs Ongoing Public Safety Challenge, Batavian (July 24, 2012, 9:59 AM), http://thebatavian.com/howard-owens/china-white-bath-salts-designer-drugs-ongoing-public-safety-challenge/32950.[10] Synthetic Drug Threats, Nat'l Conference of State Legislatures, http://www.ncsl.org/research/civil-and-criminal-justice/synthetic-drug-threats.aspx (last updated Nov. 28, 2012).[11] Synthetic Drugs, supra note 4.[12] Sacco & Finklea, supra note 3, at 5.[13] See Stock & Paredes, supra note 5.[14] Paynter, supra note 6.[15] See Melanie Haiken, ‘Bath Salts’ A Deadly New Drug with a Deceptively Innocent Name, Forbes (June 4, 2012, 4:13 PM), http://www.forbes.com/sites/melaniehaiken/2012/06/04/bath-salts-a-deadly-new-drug-with-a-deceptively-innocent-name/ (discussing the danger bath salts pose and highlighting stories of individual’s psychotic episodes after ingesting the substance).[16] Id.; Drugs of Abuse, U.S. Dept. of Justice. , Drug Enforcement Admin. 74 (2011), available at http://www.justice.gov/dea/pr/multimedia-library/publications/drug_of_abuse.pdf. [hereinafter Drugs of Abuse]; Haiken, supra note 15. .[17] Drugs of Abuse, supra note 16, at 75.[18] DrugFacts: Spice (Synthetic Marijuana), Nat’l Inst. of Drug Abuse, http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/spice-synthetic-marijuana (last modified Dec. 2012); Drugs of Abuse, supra note 16, at 75; Use of Synthetic Cannabinoid Products by Teens and Young Adults Increasing, U.S. Dept. of Justice Nat’l Drug Intelligence Ctr. (May 18, 2010), http://www.justice.gov/archive/ndic/pubs41/41193/sw0006p.pdf[19] See Nicolas Christin, Traveling the Silk Road: A Measurement Analysis of a Large Anonymous Online Marketplace 2 (Carnegie Mellon INI/Cylab, Working Paper, 2012), available at http://www.andrew.cmu.edu/user/nicolasc/publications/TR-CMU-CyLab-12-018.pdf (noting that sites such as Black Market Reloaded, the Armory, and the General Store are online marketplaces for synthetic drugs).[20] See Dangerous Synthetic Drugs: Testimony Before the Caucus on Int’l Narcotics Control, U.S. Senate, 113th Cong. 1 (2013) (statement by Dr. Nora D. Volkow, Director National Institute on Drug Abuse), available at http://www.drugcaucus.senate.gov/hearing-9-25-13/AMV075-NIH%20synthetic%20testimony%20gl%20gjd%20final.pdf.[21] See Liana Fattore & Walter Fratta, Beyond THC: The New Generation of Cannabinoid Designer Drugs, 5 Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience 3, 5 (Sept. 2011), available at http://www.frontiersin.org/behavioral_neuroscience/10.3389/fnbeh.2011.00060/full.[22] Ruth Brown, Bath Salts: More Addictive than Meth, Newser (July 14, 2013, 5:05 PM), http://www.newser.com/story/170924/bath-salts-more-addictive-than-meth.html.[23] Controlled Substance Act, 21 U.S.C. § 812(a) (2012). See also Controlled Substance Schedules, U.S. Dept. of Justice Drug Enforcement Admin., Office of Diversion Control, http://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/schedules/#list (last visited Mar. 7, 2014) (identifying a list of currently scheduled drugs).[24] 21 U.S.C. § 811(c) (2012).[25] See id. § 812(b). See also Drug Scheduling, U.S. Drug Enforcement Admin., http://www.justice.gov/dea/druginfo/ds.shtml (last visited Mar. 7, 2014) [hereinafter Drug Scheduling].[26] Drug Scheduling, supra note 25.[27] Id.[28] Id.[29] 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2012). See also 21 U.S.C. § 811(h) (2012) (noting that the Attorney General may temporary schedule substances as a Schedule I if is "necessary to avoid an imminent hazard to the public safety").[30] Andreas Digens, A Young Chemist Explains How Legal Highs Work, Vice Canada (Oct. 6, 2014), http://www.vice.com/en_ca/read/research-drugs-and-the-grey-market.[31]Controlled Substance Analogue Enforcement Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-570, §§1201-1204, 100 Stat. 3207, 3207-13 to 3207-14 (codified as amended in scattered sections of §21 U.S.C.).[32] See e.g., United States v. Nasir, No. 5:12–CR–102—JMH, 2013 WL 5373619, at *1 (E.D. Ky. Sept. 25, 2013) (citing United States v. Washam, 312 F.3d 926, 933 (8th Cir. 2002)).[33] Controlled Substance Analogue Act, §1202, 100 Stat. at 3207-13. .[34] See, e.g., Dangerous Synthetic Drugs: Caucus on Int’l Narcotics Control U.S. Senate, 113th Cong. 2–4 (2013) (statement by Timothy J. Heaphy, U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Virginia), available at http://www.drugcaucus.senate.gov/hearing-9-25-13/Heaphy_Dangerous%20Synthetic%20Drugs%20Testimony%20(SCINC).pdf[35] Synthetic Drug Abuse Prevention Act of 2012, Pub. L. No. 112-44, §§ 1152-1153, 126 Stat. 1130, 1130–32 (2012) (to be codified at 21 U.S.C. § 811-12).[36] Id. at § 1152(d)(1).[37] See Stock & Paredes, supra note 5 ("[I]t takes a chemist in Asia only a couple of week to change a molecule and get new synthetic drugs on our streets, starting the entire cycle, all over again.").[38] See Symposium, supra note 5, at 43, 48, 53 (noting that since Jan. 31, 2013, law enforcement agents have identified over 150 synthetic compounds – while in nearly two-thirds of all states, including Kentucky, there have been over 400 reports of Synthetic Cathinones and Cannabinoids compounds). See also Stock & Paredes, supra note 5 (according to the DEA five new synthetic drug compounds are introduced into the U.S. markets every month).[39] See Bath Salts Data, Am. Ass’n of Poison Control Centers 1 (Nov. 30, 2013), available at https://aapcc.s3.amazonaws.com/files/library/Bath_Salts_Web_Data_through_Nov2013.pdf; Synthetic Marijuana Data, Am. Ass’n of Poison Control Centers 1 (Nov. 30, 2013), available at https://aapcc.s3.amazonaws.com/files/library/Synthetic_Marijuana_Web_Data_through_11.2013.pdf.[40] In a recent Gallup poll, 58% of Americans supported the legalization of marijuana. See Art Swift, For First Time, Americans Favor Legalizing Marijuana, Gallup (Oct. 22, 2013), http://www.gallup.com/poll/165539/first-time-americans-favor-legalizing-marijuana.aspx; see also Stock & Paredes, supra note 5 (according to the DEA’s Bruce Goldberg "[k]ids are playing Russian roulette with their lives by ingesting things they are not aware of how dangerous they are.").[41] See Susannah Bryan, Florida Synthetic Drug Ban Mostly Successful, Experts Say, Huffington Post (Aug. 5, 2013, 2:50 AM), http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/05/synthetic-drugs-florida_n_3705519.html.[42] Amy Pavuk, Man Sentenced to Prison for Drugs After Several Overdosed on Bath Salts, Orlando Sentinel (Feb. 19, 2014), http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2014-02-19/news/os-bath-salts-death-drugs-in-house-sentence-20140219_1_bath-salts-synthetic-drugs-krystopher-sansone.[43] Id. [44] Michael Daniel Accused of Killing, Eating Dog on K-2-Fueled Rampage, Huffington Post (June 26, 2012, 1:18 PM), http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/26/michael-daniel-eating-dog_n_1627786.html.[45] Seni Tienabeso, Face-Eating Attack Possibly Prompted by 'Bath Salts,' Authorities Suspect, ABC News (May 29, 2012), http://abcnews.go.com/US/face-eating-attack-possibly-linked-bath-salts-miami/story?id=16451452. But see Rudy Eugene: No Bath Salts, Only Marijuana Found in Face-Eater Toxicology Tests, Huffington Post (June 27, 2012, 4:47 PM), http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/27/rudy-eugene-face-marijuana-medical-examiner-results_n_1632253.html (noting that within the limits of current technology by both laboratories, marijuana was the only drug identified in the body of the attacker). This presents an interesting point which previously has not been discussed that "[a]lthough tests exist to detect synthetic drugs, they are costly and are not widely available. As with legislation, changes to the composition of synthetic drugs are currently outpacing advances in detection." Symposium, supra note 5, at 11.[46] See Nat’l Forensic Sci. Tech. Ctr., A Simplified Guide to Drug Chemistry, available at http://www.crime-scene-investigator.net/SimplifiedGuideDrugChemistry.pdf[47] See 21 U.S.C. § 813 (2012); see also 21 U.S.C. § 842 (2012).[48] U.S.C. § 802(32)(A) (2012).[49] United States v. Turcotte, 405 F.3d 515, 521 (7th Cir. 2005).[50] Id. at 521.[51] Id. [52] See Turcotte, 405 F.3d at 522–23; see also United States v. Hodge, 321 F.3d 429, 436 (3d Cir. 2003) (analyzing the plain meaning and legislative history of § 802(32)(A)); United States v. Klecker, 348 F.3d 69, 71 (4th Cir. 2003) (adopting the conjunctive approach); United States v. Washam, 312 F.3d 926, 930 n.2 (8th Cir. 2002) (same); United States v. McKinney, 79 F.3d 105, 107–08 (8th Cir. 1996) (discussing the conjunctive approach), vacated on other grounds, 520 U.S. 1226 (1997); United States v. Brown, 279 F. Supp. 2d 1238, 1240 (S.D. Ala. 2003) (adopting the conjunctive reading of statute); United States v. Vickery, 199 F. Supp. 2d 1363, 1371 (N.D. Ga. 2002) (same); United States v. Clifford, 197 F. Supp. 2d 516, 522 (E.D. Va. 2002) (same); United States v. Forbes, 806 F. Supp. 232, 235-36 (D. Colo. 1992) (reviewing the Act's legislative history and asserting that the conjunctive approach is required in order to prevent absurd results); but see United States v. Fedida, 942 F. Supp. 2d 1270, 1275-76 (M.D. Fla. 2013) (concluding that the statute is ambiguous, but applying the rule of leniency requires the court to read the definition in the conjunctive).[53] 21 U.S.C. § 802(32)(A)(i) (2012).[54] Kleckler, 348 F.3d at 73.[55] United States v. Fisher, 289 F.3d 1329, 1338–39 (11th Cir. 2002).[56] Fedida, 942 F. Supp. 2d at 1277-79.[57] 21 U.S.C. § 813 (1988).[58] United States v. Nasir, No. 5:12-CR-102-JMH, 2013 WL 5373619, at *1 (E.D. Ky. Sept. 25, 2013).[59] Id.[60] Id. at *2.[61] Id. at *3.[62]Id. In performing this function, the court focuses only on the "principles and methodology, not on the conclusions that they generate." (quoting United States v. Daubert, 509 U.S. 579, 595 (1993)).[63] Id.[64]See e.g., United States v. Fedida, 942 F. Supp. 2d 1270, 1281 (stating that it was "not inclined to permit an expert to testify to a jury where the basis of his opinions rests only on broad scientific principles" supported by minimum scientific literature, not subjected to peer review, and potential error rate unknown).[65] Synthetic Abuse and Labeling of Toxic Substances Act of 2013, S. 1322, 113th Cong. (2013) [hereinafter SALTS Act].[66] Protecting Our Youth from Dangerous Synthetic Drugs Act of 2013, S. 1323, 113th Cong. (2013).[67] 21 U.S.C. § 802(32)(C)(iv) (2012).[68] SALTS Act, S. 1322 § 2.[69] Id.[70] S. 1323 § 2(a)(1).[71] Id. § 2(a)(2).[72] Id.[73] Id. § 4.[74] 21 U.S.C. § 802(32(A)(i) (2012).[75] See supra notes 54–56 and accompanying text.[76] United States v. Brown, 279 F. Supp. 2d 1238, 1245 (S.D. Ala. 2003).[77] United States v. Washam, 312 F.3d 926, 930-31 (8th Cir. 2002).[78] Brown, 279 F Supp. 2d. at 1243.[79] United States v. Fisher, 289 F.3d 1329, 1338–39 (11th Cir. 2002) (emphasis added).[80] Id.[81] Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 592–94 (1993).

Limits to the Class Action Device: The Kentucky Wages and Hours Act Does Not Permit a Class Action

Article | 103 KY. L. J. ONLINE 2 | July 17, 2015

Jeffrey A. Savarise and Timothy J. Weatherholt[1]

I. Introduction

Class action claims for unpaid wages have become pervasive in both state and federal courts. Plaintiff employment attorneys and the ever burgeoning class action law firms are filing these cases throughout the country, including in Kentucky. A wage and hour class action can be extremely lucrative from a financial standpoint for plaintiffs’ counsel. Many of these classes include hundreds, if not thousands, of class members. Assuming a one-third contingency fee, a plaintiff counsel who settles a typical wage and hour class action could easily earn a seven-figure fee.The federal wage and hour law, the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), provides for a class mechanism for wage claims – collective actions. However, individuals must “opt in” to the “class,” as opposed to the more traditional “opt out” class actions. Under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) of the FLSA, a member of the class who is not named in the complaint is not a party unless he or she affirmatively “opts in” by filing a written consent-to-join with the court.[2] This has the obvious effect of limiting the recovery pool. Recent statistics show only around fifteen percent of litigants in federal collective actions actually “opt in” to the litigation.[3] The incentive for a plaintiff counsel to proceed in a state law class action – as opposed to a collective action under the federal law that requires litigants to affirmatively “opt in” to the case – is extremely high.Fortunately, for many members of the plaintiffs’ bar who practice wage and hour cases, most states supplement the basic protections of the FLSA with their own wage and hour laws. Some, but not all of these state laws, permit the class action device. For instance, several state wage and hour statutes explicitly permit an action to be brought on behalf of others.[4] The wage and hour statutes in other states provide more general language that does not authorize, nor preclude, the use of the class action device.[5] In this situation, state courts will typically approve of the class action device.[6] In those cases, plaintiffs are basically limited to the remedy provided under the FLSA.While this issue is settled in practically every state, either by clear statutory text or case law, the question of whether a Kentucky plaintiff can pursue a class action under Kentucky’s Wages and Hours Act (the “Kentucky Act”) remains unresolved.[7] The Kentucky Act is unique in that, on its face, for the reasons explained below, it does not appear to permit class actions. Yet, until recently, courts have taken no issue with plaintiffs pursuing class actions under the Kentucky Act.[8] In fact, it appears no employer/defendant had ever raised the issue prior to the authors of this note. This issue has serious potential consequences, not only due to the differences between “opt in” and “opt out” actions, but also because the statute of limitations under the Kentucky Act is five years[9] and the statute of limitations under the FLSA is only two years for non-willful violations.[10]This note argues Kentucky courts should adhere to the plain language and other extrinsic sources that support the position that class actions are not viable under the Kentucky Act. In Part II, this note will discuss the brief history of KRS 337.385 of the Kentucky Act and a few of the relevant cases discussing how wage and hour claims may proceed. The note will then review the Kentucky Act’s plain language and compare Kentucky’s statutory language to language in similar, but distinct statutes – the FLSA and Kentucky’s statutes prohibiting wage discrimination based on sex. The note will then discuss the opposing view for why the Kentucky Act might not bar class actions. In Part III, this note will discuss the recent decision by the Kentucky Court of Appeals in which it stated, albeit in dicta, the Kentucky Act precludes class actions. In Part IV, the note will discuss why the Court of Appeals was correct, but why a more comprehensive opinion is needed. In Part V, the note will highlight another opinion which provides a roadmap for how this dispute can be resolved. The note will conclude by discussing how the Kentucky General Assembly, not the courts, provides the best opportunity to enable the plaintiffs’ bar to bring class actions under the Kentucky Act.

II. The Kentucky Act: Its History and Text, As Well As Its Similarities and Differences as Compared to Like Statutes

A.The Language of KRS 337.385 Has Remained Remarkably Consistent Over Time

KRS 337.385(1) was first adopted in 1974 and has changed remarkably little over time. The 1974 version provided as follows:

(1) Any employer who pays any employee less than wages and overtime compensation to which such employee is entitled under or by virtue of this Act shall be liable to such employee affected for the full amount of such wages and overtime compensation, less any amount actually paid to such employee by the employer, for an additional equal amount as liquidated damages, and for costs and such reasonable attorney’s fees as may be allowed by the court. Provided, that if, in any action commenced to recover such unpaid wages or liquidated damages, the employer shows to the satisfaction of the court that the act or omission giving rise to such action was in good faith and that he had reasonable grounds for believing that his act or omission was not a violation of this Act, the court may, in its sound discretion, award no liquidated damages, or award any amount thereof not to exceed the amount specified in this section. Any agreement between such employee and the employer to work for less than the applicable wage rate shall be no defense to such action. Such action may be maintained in any court of competent jurisdiction by any one or more employees for and in behalf of himself or themselves.[11]

In 1978, KRS 337.385(1) was revised to read:

(1) Any employer who pays any employee less than wages and overtime compensation to which such employee is entitled under or by virtue of KRS 337.020 to [337.275 and] 337.285 shall be liable to such employee affected for the full amount of such wages and overtime compensation, less any amount actually paid to such employee by the employer, for an additional equal amount as liquidated damages, and for costs and such reasonable attorney’s fees as may be allowed by the court. Provided, that if, in any action commenced to recover such unpaid wages or liquidated damages, the employer shows to the satisfaction of the court that the act or omission giving rise to such action was in good faith and that he had reasonable grounds for believing that his act or omission was not a violation of KRS 337.020 to [337.275 and] 337.385, the court may, in its sound discretion, award no liquidated damages, or award any amount thereof not to exceed the amount specified in this section. Any agreement between such employee and the employer to work for less than the applicable wage rate shall be no defense to such action. Such action may be maintained in any court of competent jurisdiction by any one or more employees for and in behalf of himself or themselves.[12]

In 2010, the language was modified to be gender neutral:

(1) Any employer who pays any employee less than wages and overtime compensation to which such employee is entitled under or by virtue of KRS 337.020 to 337.285 shall be liable to such employee affected for the full amount of such wages and overtime compensation, less any amount actually paid to such employee by the employer, for an additional equal amount as liquidated damages, and for costs and such reasonable attorney’s fees as may be allowed by the court. Provided, that if, in any action commenced to recover such unpaid wages or liquidated damages, the employer shows to the satisfaction of the court that the act or omission giving rise to such action was in good faith and that he or she had reasonable grounds for believing that his or her act or omission was not a violation of KRS 337.020 to 337.285, the court may, in its sound discretion, award no liquidated damages, or award any amount thereof not to exceed the amount specified in this section. Any agreement between such employee and the employer to work for less than the applicable wage rate shall be no defense to such action. Such action may be maintained in any court of competent jurisdiction by any one (1) or more employees for and in behalf of himself, herself, or themselves.[13]

Finally, in 2013, KRS 337.385 was again revised, primarily to address forced labor, and subsection (1) was split into two sections:

(1) Except as provided in subsection (3) of this section, any employer who pays any employee less than wages and overtime compensation to which such employee is entitled under or by virtue of KRS 337.020 to 337.285 shall be liable to such employee affected for the full amount of such wages and overtime compensation, less any amount actually paid to such employee by the employer, for an additional equal amount as liquidated damages, and for costs and such reasonable attorney's fees as may be allowed by the court.

(2) If, in any action commenced to recover such unpaid wages or liquidated damages, the employer shows to the satisfaction of the court that the act or omission giving rise to such action was in good faith and that he or she had reasonable grounds for believing that his or her act or omission was not a violation of KRS 337.020 to 337.285, the court may, in its sound discretion, award no liquidated damages, or award any amount thereof not to exceed the amount specified in this section. Any agreement between such employee and the employer to work for less than the applicable wage rate shall be no defense to such action. Such action may be maintained in any court of competent jurisdiction by any one (1) or more employees for and in behalf of himself, herself, or themselves.[14]

Throughout these revisions, the essential substance of the last sentence – which now reads, “[s]uch action may be maintained in any court of competent jurisdiction by any one (1) or more employees for and in behalf of himself, herself, or themselves” – remained the same.Between 1974 and 1986, there were only a few occasions where putative class actions reached the appellate level in published decisions. In Orms v. City of Louisville,[15] the issue on appeal concerned the application of Kentucky’s overtime compensation statute, KRS 337.285, to a City of Louisville policy that required its police officers to report fifteen minutes before they began their daily tour of duty.[16] The police officers sought to recover, in a class action, compensation for this time.[17] The Jefferson Circuit Court entered summary judgment for the City, and the Court of Appeals agreed, finding that the collective bargaining agreement at issue was controlling.[18]In City of Louisville v. Gnagie,[19] the plaintiffs/employers, individually and as representatives of the Louisville Firefighters’ Association, sought compensation in a class action suit against the City, pursuant to KRS 337.285, for their fifteen-minute “roll call” prior to each shift.[20 ]Both the City and the employees moved for summary judgment in Jefferson Circuit Court on the issue of liability.[21] The trial court entered summary judgment for the City, holding that the “roll call” period was de minimis,[22] and therefore, non-compensable, but the Court of Appeals reversed the Jefferson Circuit Court and remanded the case for an evidentiary hearing to resolve perceived factual disputes regarding the nature of the work performed during “roll call” and to determine whether the firefighters were customarily released from duty prior to the end of their shifts to compensate for the “roll call” period.[23] The Kentucky Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and affirmed the trial court.[24]Given the procedural postures of Orms and Gnagie, each presented obvious issues tailor-made for the City of Louisville’s attempt at a swift resolution. While the City could have raised the argument that class actions are not viable under the Kentucky Act, it clearly had even stronger arguments at its disposal. Unfortunately for the advancement of the law, a pair of Kentucky Court of Appeals cases decided around the same time as Orms and Gnagie obviated the need to address the statutory language. Collectively, Early v. Campbell Fiscal Court[25] and Noel v. Season-Sash, Inc.[26] stand for the general proposition that the Kentucky Labor Cabinet had original and exclusive jurisdiction over claims brought for the recovery of minimum wage and overtime payments, i.e., there was no right to an original action in the circuit court.[27] The Supreme Court did not overrule these cases until 20 years later in Parts Depot, Inc. v. Beiswenger.[28] Only then were litigants permitted to pursue their wage claims either at the Kentucky Labor Cabinet or in a circuit court.[29]Subsequent to the Supreme Court’s decision in Parts Depot, plaintiffs have brought class actions under the Kentucky Act in a number of cases.[30] This note contends that they lack the authority to do so, and defense practitioners, and to a lesser extent the courts, have missed the mark (at least, that is, until November 2013)[31] in failing to properly consider the meaning of the statutory language.

B. An Analysis Of The Plain Language Of KRS 337.385

1. How Kentucky Courts Analyze Statutes

The Kentucky Supreme Court has set forth the following rubric for how statutory language should be reviewed:

The seminal duty of a court in construing a statute is to effectuate the intent of the legislature. A fundamental canon of statutory construction is that, unless otherwise defined, words will be interpreted as taking their ordinary, contemporary, common meaning. Thus, we are “to ascertain the intention of the legislature for words used in enacting statutes rather than surmising what may have been intended but was not expressed.

Thus, if a statute is clear and unambiguous and expresses the legislature’s intent, the statute must be applied as written. And absent an ambiguity, there is no need to resort to the rules of statutory construction in interpreting it. Statutes, of course, must be read as a whole and in context with other parts of the law.[32]

In Revenue Cabinet v. O’Daniel,[33] the Supreme Court similarly noted, ‘“[t]he plain meaning of the statutory language is presumed to be what the legislature intended, and if the meaning is plain, then the court cannot base its interpretation on any other method or source.”’[34] Furthermore, in Lichtenstein v. Barbanel,[35] the Supreme Court remarked, “[i]f the statutory language is ambiguous, we will look to other sources to ascertain the legislature’s meaning, including legislative history.”[36]

2. Is KRS 337.385(1) of The Kentucky Act Ambiguous?

KRS 337.385 now provides that an employee or employees may sue “for and in behalf of himself, herself, or themselves.”[37] On its face, this language permits multiple individuals to pursue their claims in one proceeding, but not in a representative capacity – an employee or employees may sue only “for and in behalf of himself, herself, or themselves.”[38] The pronouns “himself,” “herself,” and “themselves” are reflexive pronouns, which always refer to, and are identical with, the subject of the sentence or clause.The subject of the statutory text at issue is the “one (1) or more employees” who are maintaining an action in court.[39] The pronouns “himself,” “herself,” and “themselves” refer to the “one (1) or more employees” who are maintaining such an action. A grammatical reading of the passage is:

(i) any one employee may maintain an action for and in behalf of himself;

(ii) any one employee may maintain an action for and in behalf of herself; and

(iii) any two or more employees may maintain an action for and in behalf of themselves.

Of course, it is fair to wonder why the General Assembly chose this particular language. After all, the General Assembly could have simply said something akin to “class actions are not permitted under this statute.” The General Assembly’s choice of words makes sense, however, in light of the federal statute on which it was modeled.

C. A Comparison To Like Statutes

1. The FLSA’s Remedy Mechanism

Kentucky courts have recognized the similarities between the remedy mechanism of the Kentucky Act and that of the FLSA.[40] The Kentucky Act’s remedy mechanism is similar to that of the FLSA, but with one major distinction, as noted below:

(Kentucky Act):

“Such action may be maintained in any court of competent jurisdiction by any one (1) or more employees for and in behalf of himself, herself, or themselves.”[41]

(FLSA):

“An action . . . may be maintained against any employer . . . by any one or more employees for and in behalf of himself or themselves and other employees similarly situated.”[42]

2. Kentucky’s Wage Discrimination Because Of Sex Statute

In addition to the FLSA inference, there is an infrequently utilized section in KRS Chapter 337 that addresses wage discrimination based on sex.[43] In principal part, the anti-discrimination provision provides, “[n]o employer shall discriminate between employees in the same establishment on the basis of sex, by paying wages to any employee in any occupation in this state at a rate less than the rate at which he or she pays any employee of the opposite sex for comparable work on jobs which have comparable requirements relating to skill, effort and responsibility.”[44] The anti-discrimination provision is enforced by a subsequent provision providing, “[a]ction to recover the liability may be maintained in any court of competent jurisdiction by any one (1) or more employees for and in behalf of himself, herself, or themselves and other employees similarly situated.”[45]

D. The Opposing View

Perhaps the most potent argument is that the language of the statute does not, in ordinary words, preclude class relief, e.g., “class actions may not be maintained under this section.” In Califano v. Yamasaki,[46] the U.S. Supreme Court considered whether a statute that provided, “[a]ny individual, after any final decision of the Secretary made after a hearing to which he was a party . . . may obtain a review of such decision by a civil action . . . .”[47] The court found the use of the ambiguous phrase “any individual” did not express the clear congressional intent to preclude class actions.[48]Another argument focused on the potential interplay between Kentucky Rule of Civil Procedure Rule (CR) 1 and 23. Rule 1 provides that the civil rules “govern procedure and practice in all actions of a civil nature . . . .”[49] In other words, there is a potential conflict between the judiciary’s adoption of civil rules permitting class actions and the legislature’s enactment of a statute that takes away the right to class actions. A number of other states have similar civil rules yet practically every state legislature, including Kentucky’s, has placed some form of a substantive restriction on the class action device.[50]Finally, the fact that a number of Kentucky courts, primarily Kentucky federal courts, have considered claims under the Act without taking issue with the ability to pursue a class action under the Act lends support, however small, to the position that the Act permits class actions.[51]

III. The Kentucky Court of Appeals Weighs in, Albeit in Dicta

In 2013, the Kentucky Court of Appeals had occasion to consider the argument that the Kentucky Act precludes class actions.[52] It did so in the context of litigation that had spanned fifteen years between Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Inc. (”TMMK”), represented by the authors of this piece,[53] and employees/former employees of its paint and bumper paint departments who claimed they were not compensated for time spent putting on and taking off a paint suit and walking to and from their work processes.[54] The Plaintiffs pursued their case as a class action, and millions of dollars in damages were potentially at issue given that the class could number over 1,000 members of TMMK’s paint and bumper paint departments.[55] This potential exposure only increased in 2007 when the Scott Circuit Court reopened the judicial case that had been final since 2003, in light of Parts Depot.[56]After a lengthy appellate process, the case returned to the Scott Circuit Court.[57] There, TMMK asserted the argument that the Kentucky Act does not provide for class actions, and, after the Scott Circuit Court denied its motion to dismiss on those grounds, re-asserted the argument in opposition to the Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification.[58] Once Plaintiffs’ motion was granted, TMMK was able to avail itself of a recent change in the civil rules that permitted litigants to make an interlocutory appeal of a grant or denial of class certification.[59]The Kentucky Court of Appeals primarily addressed the point that it agreed with TMMK that the Scott Circuit Court should not have reopened the case.[60] In dicta, though, the Court of Appeals stated:

However, were we to reach the merits of this argument, we would agree with TMMK that the text of KRS 337.385(1) provides a clear expression of intent that class actions are not permitted . . . The statute permits more than one person to bring a cause of action under KRS 337.385(1) in the same case, but they may not do so in a representative capacity. Further, the effect of the “for and in behalf of” language is to limit the individuals who may participate in an action under the Act to those who actually bring the action. Thus, even if the trial court had properly reopened the case under CR 60.02(f), KRS 337.385(1) does not permit class actions and the trial court improperly certified a class.[61]

The very next month, the Jefferson Circuit Court likewise found in favor of Humana Inc., also represented by Fisher & Phillips, who argued the same position regarding the statutory language.[62] That opinion, however, is not binding on any other Kentucky court and did not substantively address the arguments outlined above.

IV. The Kentucky Court of Appeals Was Correct, But a More Comprehensive Opinion is Needed

While the opinions of the Court of Appeals and the Jefferson Circuit Court reached the correct result, neither opinion thoroughly reviewed all of the arguments supporting the position that the Kentucky Act does not permit class actions. The most critical argument is, of course, the plain text. None of the readings of KRS 337.385(1) outlined above supports a conclusion that employees may sue for and in behalf of anyone else, that is, for and in behalf of anyone who has not also commenced an “action” to assert his or her own rights under the Act. While more than one person may bring a cause of action under the Kentucky Act, the language of KRS 337.385(1), on its face, bars them from doing so in a representative capacity. Given Kentucky law holding that the plain text controls absent ambiguity, this should resolve the issue.But given the support from extrinsic sources, it makes sense for a court to consider those sources as well. The Kentucky Act’s phrasing negating the class action device makes perfect sense when read in conjunction with the FLSA. Moreover, the Kentucky General Assembly adopted KRS 337.427, a section of the Kentucky Wage Discrimination Because of Sex statute, in 1966, eight years prior to its adoption of KRS 337.385.[63] Thus, it cannot be said the Kentucky General Assembly was unaware of the “for and in behalf of” language when it adopted KRS 337.385(1) in 1974.It is fair to wonder, however, whether the 1974 General Assembly somehow inadvertently omitted the “and other employees similarly situated” language included in the FLSA. Of course, Kentucky has long-recognized the “primary rule of statutory construction that the enumeration of particular things excludes the idea of something else not mentioned.”[64] In Fox v. Grayson,[65] the Kentucky Supreme Court noted, “[w]e cannot dismiss the notable omission of language . . . as a mere accidental oversight. It is well settled law that a court may not add language to the written law to achieve a desired result.”[66] Similarly, in Rue v. Ky. Ret. Sys.,[67] the Kentucky Court of Appeals stated, “[w]e are not free to add words to statutory enactments in order to enlarge their scope beyond that which can be gleaned from a reading of the words used by the legislature.”[68]The Kentucky Supreme Court has a history of adhering to the slight differences in language in related statutes – a point that could easily be highlighted in any opinion on the Kentucky Act. In Kentucky Department of Corrections v. McCullough,[69] the Kentucky Supreme Court considered two different provisions of the Kentucky Civil Rights Act. At issue was the availability of punitive damages, specified in one provision but not the other:

(Kentucky Civil Rights Act – Employment Discrimination):

In the employment discrimination context, permitting recovery for “actual damages sustained.”[70]

(Kentucky Civil Rights Act – Housing Discrimination):

In the housing discrimination context, permitting recovery for “punitive damages.”[71]

When faced with this obvious disparity in language, the Kentucky Supreme Court rejected the Court of Appeals’ “policy-oriented approach,” which allowed for recovery of punitive damages under the employment discrimination remedy provision of KRS 344.[72] Instead, the Court reversed and found, inter alia, that “in construing statutes it must be presumed that the Legislature intended something by what it attempted to do.”[73]A more recent case provides another compelling example of the power of precise statutory language. In Griffin v. Rice,[74] the issue was who would receive the deceased’s estate, his mother or his wife.[75] The answer turned on the Kentucky Supreme Court’s interpretation of KRS 392.090(2), which provided that a spouse who voluntarily leaves the other and “lives in adultery” forfeits his or her right to an interest in the other’s estate of property.[76] The proof at trial showed that the deceased’s wife engaged in one act of sexual intercourse with another man, which happened to be the night prior to the deceased’s death.[77]In concluding that the phrase “lives in adultery” requires proof of more than one sexual act, the Court noted Kentucky’s former fault-based divorce statute contained different phrasing depending upon the party seeking the divorce.[78] According to the prior statute – which while concededly dated and sexist is nevertheless instructive for this limited purpose – a husband or a wife could obtain a divorce on the grounds that the other was “living in adultery with another man or woman,” but, according to another provision, a husband could also obtain a divorce on the grounds of “adultery by the wife.”[79] In finding for the wife, Griffin focused on the difference in language and stated:

Had the General Assembly considered one instance of adultery sufficient to bar a husband or wife from his or her interest in the other spouse’s estate and property, it would have made this clear by employing different wording in the statute, such as “commits adultery” or “engages in adultery.” Another statute, in effect at the same time as the statute at issue, indicates the General Assembly was aware of the import of its phrasing and knew exactly how to distinguish between one adulterous act and multiple acts of adultery. . . . The language chosen by the General Assembly in the contemporaneous divorce statute makes clear the legislature was aware of the significance of its phrasing and was able, had it meant to do so, to employ language that indicated one act of adultery would be sufficient to bar a husband or wife from his or her interest in the other spouse’s estate and property.[80]

Taken together, McCullough and Griffin stand for the proposition that different word choices in closely related statutes must be given effect. The General Assembly clearly understands the import of even slight word changes, and the Supreme Court has read those words literally, regardless of the outcome. In Griffin, that approach arguably had real and negative consequences – rewarding the unfaithful wife at the expense of the deceased’s mother.By contrast, there are no such negative consequences to the General Assembly’s choice to omit the critical and dispositive phrase “and other employees similarly situated.” Any individual who wants to pursue a claim under the Kentucky Act may do so, regardless of whether class actions are permitted. That has been, and will always be, the case. Employees simply will be unable to do so in any type of representative action.In other words, the only individuals truly harmed by this argument are the plaintiffs’ bar. Ultimately, though, the plaintiffs’ bar could have the opportunity to alter this outcome, despite the plain language of the Kentucky Act.

V. The Court of Appeals Provided a Roadmap for How This Issue Should Be Resolved in an Earlier Case

In 2005, the Court of Appeals in City of Somerset v. Bell[81] correctly read a statute as providing for class actions, and later that same year, the General Assembly, disagreeing with that conclusion, amended the statute. In City of Somerset, the Court of Appeals cited a line of precedent spanning more than 70 years which interpreted the statute at issue in that case, KRS 134.590(6), and its predecessor statute, as not allowing for class relief because it provided “[n]o refund shall be made unless application is made in each case within two (2) years from the date payment was made.”[82]City of Somerset noted that line of precedent was called into question due to a 1996 statutory amendment to KRS 134.590(6) which deleted the words “in each case.”[83] This amendment allowed the plaintiff taxpayers to argue the statute now permitted class actions.[84] The Court agreed with the taxpayers, citing Kentucky law providing, “[w]here a statute is amended or re-enacted in different language, it will not be presumed that the difference between the two statutes was due to oversight or inadvertence on the part of the Legislature. On the contrary, it will be presumed that the language was intentionally changed for the purpose of effecting a change in the law itself.”[85] Given this guidance, the court concluded:

Considering the historical significance of that phrase [in each case], beginning in the Swiss Oil case, we must conclude that the intent of the legislature was to amend that portion of the statute limiting refunds for ad valorem taxes to individual claims. Even if the change was unintentional, its effect was to alter key language of a statute, which, for some seventy years before the amendment, had been interpreted by the courts to limit tax refunds to individual claims.[86]

The General Assembly became aware of this result, and, later that very same year (2005), enacted new language to make clear its intent that class actions are not permissible.[87] The statute now reads, “[n]o refund shall be made unless each taxpayer individually applies . . .”[88]City of Somerset provides a model for how statutes should be reviewed. The absence of the phrase “in each case” was critical and dispositive in that case. It would have been more than a little odd for the Court to deny the availability of the class action mechanism to the taxpayers in 2005, given how the statute read at that time. But the General Assembly did not want taxpayers to be able to proceed as a class, so it took away that ability through an amendment to the statute’s text. If the General Assembly believes class actions are appropriate under the Kentucky Act, it will presumably do likewise here, once a Kentucky court definitively decides this issue. Absent that, it would be inappropriate for the judiciary to read into the Kentucky Act what is not there – either by consideration of the plain language or from the context of similar statutes.

[1] Jeff Savarise and Tim Weatherholt are partners in the Louisville office of Fisher & Phillips LLP, a national labor and employment law firm representing employers. Jeff is a 1982 graduate of John Carroll University and a 1985 graduate of the University of Akron School of Law. Tim is a 2001 graduate of Transylvania University and a 2004 graduate of Vanderbilt Law School.[2] Kinney Shoe Corp. v. Vorhes, 564 F.2d 859, 862 (9th Cir. 1977); 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) (2008).[3] See, e.g., Andrew C. Brunsden, Hybrid Class Actions, Dual Certification, and Wage Law Enforcement in the Federal Courts, 29 Berkeley J. Emp. & Lab. L. 269, 292–94 (2008).[4] See, e.g., Alaska Stat. § 23.10.110(b) (2012) (“An action to recover from the employer the wages and damages for which the employer is liable may be maintained in a competent court by an employee personally and for other employees similarly situated, or an employee may individually designate in writing an agent or representative to maintain an action for the employee.”); Haw. Rev. Stat. § 387-12(c) (2008) (“Action to recover such liability may be maintained in any court of competent jurisdiction by any one or more employees for and in behalf of oneself or themselves and other employees similarly situated, or the employee or employees may designate an agent or representative to maintain action for and in behalf of all employees similarly situated.”); N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. 275:53(1) (2008) (“Action by an employee to recover unpaid wages and/or liquidated damages may be maintained in any court of competent jurisdiction by any one or more employees for and in behalf or himself, or themselves, or such employee or employees may designate an agent or representative to maintain such action.”).[5] See, e.g., Minn. Stat. § 177.27(8) (2006) (“An employee may bring a civil action seeking redress . . . .”).[6] See, e.g., Braun v. Wal-Mart, Inc., No. 19-CO-01-9790, 2003 WL 22990114, at *3 (D. Minn. 2003) (certifying class in connection with working off the clock and through break and meal periods on breach of contract and other theories).[7] The Kentucky Act provides in pertinent part: “Such action may be maintained in any court of competent jurisdiction by any one (1) or more employees for and in behalf of himself, herself, or themselves.” Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 337.385(2) (West Supp. 2014).[8] See. e.g., Whitlock v. FSL Mgt., LLC, No. 3:10CV-00562-JHM, 2012 WL 3274973, at *14 (W.D. Ky. 2012), Hughes, v. UPS Supply Chain Solutions, Inc., Nos. 2012-CA-001353-ME, 2012-CA-001757-ME, 2013 WL 4779746, at *7 (Ky. Ct. App. 2013); England v. Adv. Stores Co., Inc., 263 F.R.D. 423, 458 (W.D. Ky. 2009); Barker v. Family Dollar, Inc., No. 3:10-CV-00170-H, 2012 WL 5305335, at *1 (W.D. Ky. 2012); McCauley v. Family Dollar, Inc., No. 3:10-CV-363-S, 2010 WL 3221880, at *1 (W.D. Ky. 2010).[9] Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 413.120(2) (2006).[10] 29 U.S.C. § 255 (2011).[11] Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 337.385 (1974) (current version at Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 337.385 (West Supp. 2014)).[12] Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 337.385 (1978) (current version at Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 337.385 (West Supp. 2014)).[13] Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 337.385 (2010) (current version at Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 337.385 (West Supp. 2014)).[14] Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 337.385 (West Supp. 2014).[15] Orms v. City of Louisville, 686 S.W.2d 464 (Ky. Ct. App. 1984).[16] Id. at 465.[17] Id.[18 ] Id.[19] City of Louisville v. Gnagie, 716 S.W.2d 236 (Ky. 1986).[20] Id. at 237.[21] Id. at 236–37.[22] De minimis is a Latin expression meaning about minimal things. It is commonly used by courts as a basis to not count certain small increments of time and the beginning and end of a workday that may otherwise be compensable.[23] Gnagie, 716 S.W.2d at 237.[24] Id.[25 ]Early v. Campbell Cnty. Fiscal Court, 690 S.W.2d 398 (Ky. Ct. App. 1985).[26] Noel v. Season-Sash, Inc., 722 S.W.2d 901 (Ky. Ct. App. 1986).[27] See id. at 903 (To reiterate, the Commissioner of Labor has original jurisdiction, as held in the Early case, only in those wage and hour disputes in which the duty to provide the benefits sought by the claimant derives solely from the statute . . . .”).[28] Parts Depot, Inc. v. Beiswenger, 170 S.W.3d 354, 356 (Ky. 2005).[29] See id. at 361–62.[30] See, e.g., Barker v. Family Dollar, Inc., No. 3:10-CV-00170-H, 2012 WL 5305335, at *1 (W.D. Ky. Oct. 25, 2012); Whitlock v. FSL Mgmt., LLC, No. 3:10-CV-00562-JHM, 2012 WL 3274973, at *1 (W.D. Ky. Aug. 10, 2012); McCauley v. Family Dollar, Inc., No. 3:10-CV-363-S, 2010 WL 3221880, at *1 (W.D. Ky. Aug. 12, 2010); England v. Advance Stores Co., 263 F.R.D. 423 (W.D. Ky. 2009); Hughes v. UPS Supply Chain Solutions, Inc., Nos. 2012-CA-001353-ME, 2012-CA-001757-ME, 2013 WL 4779746, at *1 (Ky. Ct. App. Sept. 6, 2013).[31] See infra notes 52–63 and accompanying text.[32 ]Hall v. Hospitality Res., 276 S.W.3d 775, 784 (Ky. 2008) (citations omitted).[33] Revenue Cabinet v. O’Daniel, 153 S.W.3d 815 (Ky. 2005).[34] Id. at 819 (citing Ronald Benton Brown & Sharon Jacobs Brown, Statutory Interpretation: The Search for Legislative Intent § 4.2, at 38 (2002)).[35] Lichtenstein v. Barbanel, 322 S.W.3d 27 (Ky. 2010).[36] Id. at 34–35 (citing MPM Financial Group Inc. v. Morton, 289 S.W.3d 193, 198 (Ky. 2009)).[37] Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 337.385 (West Supp. 2014).[38] Id.[39] Id.[40] See Parts Depot, Inc. v. Beiswenger, 170 S.W.3d 354, 358 (Ky. 2005).[41] Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 337.385 (West 2014).[42] 29 U.S.C. § 216 (2012) (emphasis added).[43] Kentucky’s Wage Discrimination Because of Sex provisions are located at Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann §§ 337.420—337.433 (West 2014).[44] Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann §§ 337.423(1) (West 2014).[45] Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann §§ 337.427(2) (West 2014) (emphasis added).[46] Califano v. Yamasaki, 442 U.S. 682 (1979).[47] Id. at 698 n. 12.[48] Id. at 700.[49] Ky. R. Civ. P. 1(2).[50] (Class Action not permitted—31 states) See, e.g., Ala. Code § 8-19-10(f) (2014); Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 33-712(C) (2014); Ark. Code Ann. § 4-87-103 (West 2014); Conn. Gen. Stat. § 36a-740 (West 2014); Fla. Stat. § 624.155(6) (West 2014); Ga. Code. Ann. § 7-4-21 (West 2014); Haw. Rev. Stat. § 477E-4(b) (West 2014); Idaho Code Ann. § 28-45-201(1) and (3) (West 2014); 740 Ill. Comp. Stat. 10/7(2) (West 2014); Iowa Code § 537.5203(1) (West 2014); Kan. Stat. Ann. § 50-634(b) (West 2014); Ky. Rev. Stat. 134.590(6) (West 2014); La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 51:1409(A) (2014); Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.1611(1) (2014); Minn. Stat. § 325M.07 (2014); Miss. Code Ann. § 75-24-15(4) (West 2014); Mont. Code Ann. § 30-14-133(1) (West 2013); Neb. Rev. Stat. § 77-2793(1) (2014); N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 359-H:4 (2014); N.J. Stat. Ann. § 46:10B-29(a)(2) (West 2014); N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75C-5 (2014); Okla. Stat. tit. 36 § 6595; Or. Rev. Stat. § 238.362(4)(a) (2014); 73 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 2208(d) (2014); R.I. Gen Laws § 15-7.2-5(b) (2014); S.C. Code Ann. § 40-39-160(1) (2013); S.D. Codified Laws § 10-47B-131.2 (2014); Tenn. Code Ann. § 56-47-108(a)(2) (West 2014); Tex. Bus. & Com. Code Ann. § 605.005 (West 2013); Utah Code Ann. § 13-37-203(3) (West 2014); Wash. Rev. Code § 63.60.070(3) (2014). (Class Action Limited – 15 states) See, e.g., Cal. Civ. Code § 1787.3(b) (West 2014); Col. Rev. Stat. § 6-1-113(2) (2014); Ind. Code 9-32-12-4(c) (2014); Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 32, § 11054(c)(2) (2014); Md. Code Ann. § 12-707(c) (West 2014); Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 140D, § 32(a)(2)(b) (2014); Mo. Rev. Stat. § 71.675(2) (2014); Nev. Rev. Stat. § 38.255(3)(b) (2014); N.M. Stat. Ann. § 58-16-15(B) (West 2014); N.Y. Gen. Oblig. Law § 5-702(a)(2) (McKinney 2014); Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 1351.08(A)(2)(b)(ii) (West 2014); Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-316(A)(2) (West 2014); W. Va. Code § 6C-2-3(e)(2) (2014); Wis. Stat. § 426.110(3) (2013); Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 40-19-119(a)(iii) (2014).[51] See Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 413.120(2) (West 2014).[52] Toyota Motor Mfg, Kentucky, Inc. v. Kelley, et al., No. 2012-CA-001508-ME, 2013 WL 6046079 (Ky. Ct. App. Nov. 15, 2013).[53] As co-author Jeff Savarise tells the story, he locked himself in his office, determined to develop an argument that would allow TMMK to prevail in this case. When he emerged, he posited the heretofore novel theory that that Kentucky Act does not permit class actions. Just as in Orms and Gnagie, there were other arguments to present on appeal, but this novel argument provided an extra layer of security in the correctness of our position.[54] TMMK, 2013 WL 6046079, at *1.[55] Id.[56] Id. at *2.[57] Id. at *2.[58] Id. at *3–4.[59] Ky. R. Civ. P. 23.06, which became effective on January 1, 2011, provides, “[a]n order granting or denying class action certification is appealable within 10 days after the order is entered. . .”[60] TMMK, 2013 WL 6046079, at *8–9.[61] Id. at *9.[62] See Brown v. Humana Inc. and Humana Ins. Co., No. 13-CI-002422 (Ky. Cir. Ct. Dec. 5, 2013).[63] Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 337.427 (West 1966).[64] Smith v. Wedding, 303 S.W.2d 322, 323 (Ky. 1957) (citation omitted).[65] Fox v. Grayson, 317 S.W.3d 1 (Ky. 2010).[66] Id. at 8.[67] Rue v. Ky. Ret. Sys., 32 S.W.3d 87 (Ky. Ct. App. 2000).[68] Id. at 89.[69] Kentucky Department of Corrections v. McCullough, 123 S.W.3d 130 (Ky. 2003).[70] Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 344.450 (West 1974).[71] Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 344.660 (West 1991); Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 344.665 (West 1992).[72] McCullough, 123 S.W.3d at 139.[73] Id. at 140 (emphasis added).[74] Griffin v. Rice, 381 S.W.3d 198 (Ky. 2012).[75] Id.at 200.[76] Id. at 201.[77] Id. at 199.[78] Id. at 202–03.[79] Id. at 202.[80] Id. at 202–03.[81] City of Somerset v. Bell, 156 S.W.3d 321 (Ky. Ct. App. 2005).[82] Id. at 326 (citing Swiss Oil Corp. v. Shanks, 270 S.W. 478 (Ky. 1925); Bd. of Educ. of Fayette County v. Taulbee, 706 S.W.2d 827 (Ky. 1986); Bischoff v. City of Newport, 733 S.W.2d 762 (Ky. Ct. App. 1987)) (emphasis in original).[83] Id. at 326.[84] Id. [85] Id. at 327 (citing Eversole v. Eversole, 185 S.W. 487, 489 (1916)).[86] Id. at 326–27.[87] Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 134.590(6) (West 1992).[88] Id. (Emphasis added).

The Commonwealth's Response to Kentucky's Pill Mill Problem

This Online Original is available for download (PDF) here.

Article | 102 KY. L. J. ONLINE 2 | Oct. 27, 2013

Peter P. CohronFN1

Introduction

Prescription pain pill abuse and misuse is a substantial problem in Kentucky.FN2 In the Commonwealth, over one thousand deaths per year are attributable to drug overdoses.FN3 This figure is the sixth highest in the country and represents more deaths than those caused by automobile accidents. Additionally, Kentucky ranks as the fourth most medicated state in the United States, though it ranks twenty-sixth for population.FN4 Governor Steve Beshear has acknowledged the problem, “We have an epidemic in Kentucky that we cannot ignore….We are losing lives. We are losing families, and we’ve got to aggressively attack that problem.”FN5 Much of the state’s drug problem was the result of pain pill mills, alleged pain management clinics where patients were prescribed controlled substance (narcotic) prescription medication following either a cursory examination or no examination by the physician on site. The phrase “pill mill” is nomenclature used by local and state police investigators most often to describe a physician or clinic, and occasionally a pharmacy, that is prescribing or dispensing controlled substance narcotics inappropriately or for non-medical reasons.FN6 However, the Governor’s call to arms was not solely aimed at these so-called clinics. Governor Beshear sought comprehensive legislation that would address all of  the concerns regarding the prescribing and use of controlled substances including  properly organizing and running pain management facilities, properly training physicians prescribing these dangerous drugs, balancing the interests to provide a watchful but not overly intrusive eye on the patient consumer of these drugs, and providing authority for the proper administrative boards and the necessary police powers to act in cases of prescribing regulations. In a demonstration of the importance of this issue, Governor Beshear called a special session of the Kentucky Legislature to provide for a solution.

House Bill 1 (KRS 218A.172)

The Legislature responded with House Bill 1 (HB1).FN7 House Bill 1 recognized the necessity of having properly managed and maintained pain management clinics. Therefore rather than banning such facilities outright, HB1 sought to achieve quality care by instituting standards for opening and running such a clinic. The Legislature attempted to balance the need for regulation due to the prevalence of the misuse of these medications leading to dependence and violence with the privacy concerns of the prescription pill user. HB1 attempted to strike this balance by limiting scope of the bill to Schedule IIFN8 controlled substances and other controlled substances containing hydrocodone.FN9 However, in promulgating administrative regulations pursuant to this bill, under KRS 218A.172, which is also limited to these drugs, the Kentucky Board of Medical Licensure relied on KRS 218A.205, a statue regarding reports of improper, inappropriate, or illegal prescribing or dispensing of controlled substances. As a result, the regulation promulgatedFN10 was not limited to Schedule II controlled substances and controlled substances containing hydrocodone, but included all controlled substances except Schedule V.FN11 A primary issue addressed by the regulation is the physician’s decision to prescribe a controlled substance to a patient for pain. Under this regulation, in order to prescribe controlled substances, a physician must meet certain professional standards. Prior to prescribing, the physician must obtain an “appropriate medical history relevant to the medical complaint,”FN12 obtain a KASPER report on the patent,FN13 make a “deliberate decision” to prescribe a controlled substance after weighing the benefits of the drug against the risks,FN14 and counsel the patient regarding how to take the drug and when to stop the treatment.FN15 As many of the patients at pain management facilities, legitimate and otherwise, are chronic controlled substance users, the regulation sets forth additional standards for prescribing for this patient population. These standards apply to all patients over the age of sixteen who are being treated with controlled substances for longer than 3 months.FN16 Before prescribing and regularly afterwards, the prescribing physician must obtain a history of the illness or condition, a past medical history, including any relevant family history and any history of past substance abuse, and a psychosocial history.FN17 To ensure a first time face-to-face meeting between patient and physician, there must be an appropriate physical examination that supports the patient’s claim of chronic pain,FN18 and a baseline assessment that establishes starting measurements by which to gauge future progress or decline in the condition.FN19 If this screening indicates any propensity or indication of substance abuse, the physician is required to refer the patient to an appropriate treatment center or provider.FN20 If the patient shows an indication or risk of diverting the prescribed drugs, the physician shall employ the use of a prescribing agreement, or pain management contract.FN21 Where there is any indication of either behavior, prior to the prescribing of controlled substances, the physician must perform a baseline drug screen.FN22 Once a patient begins long term continuing treatment for pain, the physician must meet additional requirements. The patient must be re-evaluated on a monthly basis by the physician and then at appropriate intervals.FN23 If improvement is expected and does not occur, the physician must refer the patient to an appropriate physician for consultation.FN24 The patient is also required to have an annual physical examination.FN25 The physician also must obtain follow-up KASPER reports at least every 3 months.FN26 Frequently when pharmacies deny filling pain mill prescriptions these patients present in hospitals’ emergency departments complaining of pain. In order to deter this behavior, the regulation placed limits on emergency doctors’ ability to prescribe these medications. Under the new law, emergency doctors were prohibited from administering IV controlled substances,FN27 replacing a lost or stolen prescription for a controlled substance,FN28 replacing a methadone Subutex or Suboxone dose for a patient in a drug treatment program,FN29 prescribing controlled release products such as Oxycontin,FN30 or prescribing more than a 7 day supply of a controlled substance.FN31 For the treatment of other conditions (excluding pain), the same standards apply. In the case where the patient has a psychiatric complaint, an appropriate psychiatric examination must be performed prior to prescribing controlled substances.FN32 If the on-site physician is, or feels, unqualified to perform a psychiatric examination, the patient must be referred to an appropriate physician or facility.FN33 In seeking to establish its authority and determine its scope, HB1 defined a pain management facility as a facility where the majority of patients are treated for pain with controlled substances, and 1) the primary practice component is pain treatment, or 2) the clinic advertises any type of pain management services.FN34 HB1 regulated the ownership of such pain management facilities by requiring that only a fully licensed physician may own or have an investment interest in a pain clinic, though clinics in existence before July 20, 2012 were grandfathered in.FN35  Additionally, one physician owner must be on-site at least 50% of the time the facility is open and he must be engaged in the practice of medicine at the site.FN36 This physician must hold a current American Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS) subspecialty certification, American Osteopathic Association Bureau of Osteopathic Specialties (AOABOS) certification in pain management, or a current ABMS or AOABOS certification in hospice or palliative care, or hold board certification by the American Board of Pain Medicine or American Board of Interventional Pain Physicians, or have done a residency or fellowship in pain management.FN37 In another move to legitimize treatment for those truly in pain, HB1 addressed the issue of payment. Prior to enactment of HB1, unscrupulous physicians were preying on those in chronic pain by accepting cash as the only form of payment, thus obfuscating the facility’s records. HB1 required that pain management facilities accept private health insurance and payment only from the patient, responsible caregiver, and/or insurance.FN38 After HB1 was implemented with relevant administrative regulations physicians, while agreeing that prescription drug abuse was “an out of control issue in Kentucky” and a very serious problem, criticized HB1.FN39 The critics were not limited to physicians, as hospitals and patients also claimed that “HB 1 in its present form restricts too many drugs in too many clinical settings, needlessly complicating medical care.”FN40 Because of HB1, many patients incurred costs for drug testing that their insurance would not cover.FN41 For these reasons, the bill seemed to, in effect, punish the patient in more ways than it was aiding in the fight against pill mills.

House Bill 217

In response to these criticisms, Governor Beshear signed into law House Bill 217 (HB217) on March 5, 2013. This bill was designed to address and eliminate the problems created by HB1.FN42 The purpose of this new bill was to remove onerous requirements from both physician and patient, while continuing to address the widespread drug abuse problem in Kentucky and seeking to provide adequate medical care and treatment for those patients truly in pain, acute or chronic. The all-encompassing sweep of HB1 had previously required that every entity in the Commonwealth be covered by HB1. To remedy this scope issue, HB217 exempted hospitals, long term care facilities, hospices, and end-of-life care centers that prescribe controlled substances and research facilities from the reporting and prescribing requirements.FN43 These facilities and prescribers were determined to only contribute slightly to pain pill abuse and therefore their inclusion under HB1 was deemed unduly burdensome. HB217 also addressed HB1’s requirement that each facility whose primary function or business was pain management have some kind of certification in pain control or management. Critics argued that this requirement, though reasonable, was problematic as it forced the closure of businesses until their physicians could comply with the certification. HB217 amended this requirement to allow facilities without such certification to stay open if they were “making reasonable progress toward completing or holding, a certification.”FN44 Next, the bill revised the KASPER requirement of HB1. Under the previous bill, KASPER checks were not limited to a specific time period prior to treatment. Therefore, KASPER reports had to be sought as far back as obtainable. Critics argued that this was an unnecessary administrative burden and that it created an impediment to establishing effective treatment plans.FN45 Additionally, there was concern that patients who had successfully completed a drug addiction treatment program would be characterized incorrectly by reference to their past records. HB217 addresses these concerns by limiting the scope of the KASPER check to twelve months previous to the day of the examination or prescription for controlled substances.FN46  However, HB217 requires that if treatment extends beyond ninety days, then the KASPER query be repeated every three months.FN47 The major criticism from physicians of HB1 was that requiring a physical examination and a medical history review prior to prescribing a controlled substance was an undue burden, repetitive, and time-consuming. To attempt to balance all of the interests involved, HB217 removed the word “complete” from the legislation so that physicians, in the exercise of professional judgment, could limit the scope of the examination to those facets important to the medical complaint. Second, the requirement for an examination was changed and required now only when “appropriate to the patient’s medical complaint.”FN48 This requirement relieves the physician from completing a physical examination, especially in circumstances where the physician is already well acquainted with the patient’s condition, and additionally relieves the patient of the costs of unnecessary testing. Even with the changes implemented by HB217, critics continue to have concerns. Critics worry that physicians, faced with significant oversight, may treat pain too cautiously or not at all. The fear continues to be that legitimate patients in extreme pain will still have substantial obstacles to obtaining the medication that they need.FN49

Conclusion

The impact of the legislation was largely seen prior to the enactment of HB217. When HB1 had been in force for less than three months, ten pain management pill mills in the Commonwealth of Kentucky had closed. Prescriptions for the pill mill “cocktail”FN50 have dropped dramatically. The number of KASPER subscribers had tripled, and KASPER is handling, on average, more than 18,000 requests a day (of which over 90% are responded to in less than fifteen minutes).FN51 With the passage of HB1 and HB217, the Kentucky Legislature has taken a strong and serious step towards ending the epidemic of drug abuse widespread in the Commonwealth. The willingness of the Legislature to flexibly and quickly address issues with the initial bill emphasizes its concern for this issue. However, HB1 and HB217 merely address only one of the root causes of the drug problem in Kentucky. Therefore neither the citizenry nor the Legislature should celebrate the accomplishments made by these bills, but instead, they should swiftly seek out other effective ways to help significantly address and substantially eliminate the drug problem in Kentucky.

FN1. Peter P. Cohron is a graduate of the University of Kentucky colleges of Pharmacy and Law.  He practices in both professions, as a pharmacist for a major retail chain and as an attorney in private practice mainly dealing with pharmacy related issues.

FN2. The definition of drug or substance abuse is the use of a drug for a result unintended by the prescriber, e.g., getting high. Misuse is defined as the use of a drug for an intended result but taken in a manner or dose not prescribed. Abuse, The Free Dictionary.com, http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/abuse (last visited September 15, 2013).

FN3. Stop Rx Abuse Before It Starts, Office of the Attorney General, http://ag.ky.gov/rxabuse/Pages/default.aspx (last visited Sept. 15, 2013).

FN4. Id.

FN5. Mike Wynn, Kentucky Senate Passes Pill Mill Legislation, Courier-Journal (Louisville), March 28, 2012, http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20120328/NEWS01/303280092/Kentucky-Senate-passes-pill-mill-legislation.

FN6. Id.

FN7. H.R. 1A, 2012 Gen. Assemb., 1st Spec. Sess. § 1(1)(A) (Ky. 2012) (hereinafter HB1).

FN8. Schedule II controlled substances are defined in Ky. Rev. Stat. §§ 218A.060–070 (LexisNexis 2013).

FN9. Hydrocodone is a Schedule III controlled substance, defined in Ky. Rev. Stat. §§ 218A.080–090 (LexisNexis 2013) and referenced as “dihydrocodeinone,” a synonym for hydrocodone that is marketed under such brand names as Lortab, Vicodin, and Norco.

FN10. Professional Standards for Prescribing and Dispensing Controlled Substances, 201 Ky. Admin. Reg. 9:260 (September 2013).

FN11. Id. at § 1(2)(g).

FN12. Id. at § 3(1).

FN13. Id. at § 3(2). KASPER, Kentucky All Security Prescription Electronic Record, is a monitoring system for all controlled substance prescriptions dispensed in the Commonwealth of Kentucky.

FN14. Id. at § 3(3).

FN15. Id. at §§ 3–5.

FN16. Id. at § 4(1).

FN17. Id. at § 4(2)(a).

FN18. Id. at § 4(2)(b).

FN19. Id. at § 4(2)(c).

FN20. Id. at § 4(2)(h)(2).

FN21. Id. at (4)(2)(h)(3). These agreements or contracts may limit who may prescribe controlled substances to the patient, state the pharmacy where the patient must fill his prescriptions, and/or require random pill counts and drug tests.

FN22. Id. at § (4)(2)(h)(4).

FN23. Id. at § (5)(2)(a)(1).

FN24. Id. at § (5)(2)(e).

FN25. Id. at § (5)(2)(h).

FN26. Id. at § (5)(2)(i).

FN27. Id. at § (6)(1).

FN28. Id. at § (6)(2).

FN29. Id. at § (6)(3).

FN30. Id. at § (6)(4).

FN31. Id. at § 7(1)(a).

FN32. Id. at § (6)(6).

FN33. Id. at § (7)(1)(a)(1)-(2).

FN34. H.R. 1A, 2012 Gen. Assemb., 1st Spec. Sess. § 1(1)(A) (Ky. 2012) (hereinafter HB1).

FN35. Id. at § 1(2).

FN36. Id. at § 1(3).

FN37. Id.

FN38. Id. at § 1(4).

FN39. Gregory A. Hood, Kentucky House Bill 1: Controlled Substance Regulations, Perhaps Nationally Next?, Weekend Call (July 21, 2012, 08:18 PM), http://boards.medscape.com/forums/?128@@.2a339438!comment=1.

FN40. John Cheves, Kentucky Lawmakers Expected to Alter Pill Mill Bill in Session That Starts Tuesday, Lexington Herald-Leader, January 5, 2013, http://www.kentucky.com/2013/01/05/2465788/ky-lawmakers-expected-to-alter.html.

FN41. Id.

FN42. Kentucky “Pill Mill Bill” Amended by House Bill 217, Frost Brown Todd (Mar. 6, 2013), http://www.frostbrowntodd.com/resources-1579.html.

FN43. H.R. 217, 2013 Gen. Assemb., Reg. Sess. § 1(4) (Ky. 2013) (hereinafter HB 217).

FN44. Id. at § 2(3)(f).

FN45. Kentucky “Pill Mill Bill” Amended by House Bill 217, supra note 41.

FN46. HB217 at § 1(1)(b).

FN47. Id. at § 1(2)(b)(1).

FN48. Id. at § 1(1)(a).

FN49. Gregory A. Hood, Kentucky House Bill 1: Controlled Substance Regulations, Perhaps Nationally Next?, Weekend Call (July 21, 2012, 08:18 PM), http://boards.medscape.com/forums/?128@@.2a339438!comment=1.

FN50. Usually a pain pill mill cocktail includes prescriptions for carisoprodol, alprazolam, and either hydrocodone or oxycodone-containing painkillers.

FN51. Press Release, Kentucky Office of the Attorney General, New Prescription Abuse Laws Driving Pill Mills Out of Business, Investigations of Overprescribers Launched (Oct. 17, 2012), available at http://migration.kentucky.gov/newsroom/ag/fewerpillmills.htm.

Sticks and Stones: A Needed Legislative Reform to Kentucky's Approach to Cyberbulling

This Online Original is available for download (PDF) here.

Article | 102 KY. L. J. ONLINE 1 | Sept. 22, 2013

Amanda East

Introduction

It can hardly be argued that…students…shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech…at the schoolhouse gate.FN1

Reading, writing, and arithmetic are the “three r’s” used to describe the foundation of the typical American education. Another unspoken fixture of the American classroom is bullying. This longstanding practice has entered the new millennium, and technology has given bullies new ways to torment victims. Kameron Jacobsen was a high school freshman in New York who enjoyed spending time with his family and was constantly using Facebook, a social networking site, to interact with his classmates.FN2 This social forum became a nightmare when his peers used it to taunt and ridicule Kameron until he committed suicide.FN3 His family had no available recourse because, like most states, New York’s legislative and judicial branches are ill-prepared to address the emerging issue of cyberbullying.FN4 Perhaps worst of all, Kameron is not the first student to be “a victim of cyberbullying,” nor is he the last. In the Bluegrass State, Rachael Neblett, a seventeen-year old high school student took her life in 2006 under similar circumstances.FN5 The Internet has benefited teenagers in a number of ways, but, in conjunction with these benefits, courts have seen increased litigation regarding cyberbullying.FN6 The absence of Supreme Court precedent on this issue has resulted in an array of state and federal court decisions. State legislatures have amended or adopted new statutes to address this problem. I contend that in order to sufficiently address cyberbullying, Kentucky needs to recognize schools have an important interest in preventing cyberbullying and need broader authority to effectively address this problem. Kentucky needs to enact legislation, similar to Vermont or Massachusetts, permitting schools to regulate off-campus Internet student speech. This broadening of what it means to be “within” the “schoolhouse gates” is justified because of the nature of the interest and the legislature’s ability to tailor schools’ authority in order not to infringe on protected speech. In order to prove this thesis, Part I will begin by defining cyberbullying. Part II will then examine lower court decisions on the cyberbullying issue, beginning with relevant Supreme Court precedent, and the developing body of case law, identifying three standard cyberbullying approaches taken by lower courts. Part III will address state legislatures’ responses to cyberbullying. Part IV will analyze efforts by the House of the Kentucky General Assembly to amend existing statutes and their shortcomings, and finally Part V will conclude with an appeal for additional cyberbullying legislation in Kentucky.

I.      Cyberbullying and its Effects

Cyberbullying is distinguishable from traditional bullying in four ways. First, the aggressor can choose to remain anonymous by creating a false, online identity, establishing a sense of power and control.FN7 Second, the speed of dissemination ensures the victim will more readily experience the bullying.FN8 Third, the Internet has unlimited reach ensuring “cruel and sadistic behavior [will be] amplified and publicized, not just on the campus [of a school], but throughout the world.”FN9 Last, the victim’s torment is constant and inescapable because he or she experiences it every time they access the Internet.FN10

II.      Student Speech and The First Amendment: An Overview

A. Supreme Court Student Speech Jurisprudence

In the wake of increased litigation, lower courts have used four seminal Supreme Court cases to balance a student’s interest in freedom of speech and the school’s interest in regulation. The first of these cases, Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, established protection of in-school student speech, while the three subsequent cases carved out content-based exceptions. In effect, the Supreme Court has instituted four standards that lower courts may apply in determining the constitutionality of student speech.

1.      Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District

In Tinker, the Court stated that students do not “shed their constitutional rights…at the schoolhouse gate,’” and struck down students’ suspensions for wearing black armbands in school because the school failed to show a “substantial disruption.”FN11Under this standard, a school may regulate student speech to provide a safe and productive learning environment only when the school can show the speech did, or could reasonably be foreseen to, materially and substantially disrupt the work and discipline of the school.FN12

2.      Bethlehem School District v. Fraser

Bethlehem School District v. Fraser established a separate standard restriction on student speech.FN13 The Fraser standard permits schools to prohibit vulgar, lewd, or obscene student speech regardless of whether or not it results in disruption because the Court recognized that schools have an interest in protecting minors from speech that is “inconsistent with the ‘fundamental values’ of public school education.”FN14

3.      Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier

In Hazelwood, the Supreme Court upheld censoring student speech because it was part of a school-sponsored activity “bear[ing] the imprimatur of the school,” meaning the school was effectively being asked to promote student speech inconsistent with its basic educational mission.FN15 Hazelwood’s restriction permits public schools to regulate the content of a school-sponsored activity so long as it is reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns.FN16

4.      Morse v. Frederick

This most recent case establishes a restriction acknowledging that public schools may limit student speech which could “reasonably [be] viewed as promoting illegal drug use” because schools have an important, and perhaps compelling, interest in discouraging such activity.FN17 Morse suggests that a school may limit student speech because of the school’s important interest in prohibiting the content itself.FN18

B.  Applying these Standards: How Courts Approach Internet Student Speech Off-Campus

The absence of direct Supreme Court precedent has resulted in “a ‘state of tumult about the precise scope of First Amendment rights possessed by students.’” and lower courts have adopted three common approaches to address the matter.FN19

1.      The Geography Approach

This approach distinguishes between “on-campus” and “off-campus” speech. Courts will initially determine if the speech occurred on school grounds or during a school-sponsored activity to ensure there is a sufficient nexus for the court to rely on existing school-speech jurisprudence to render a decision.FN20 This approach has produced mixed results. In Mahaffey v. Aldrich, a district court found that a student website entitled “Satan’s webpage” encouraging violence and containing a death list was outside the school’s reach because the speech did not create an actual disruption under the Tinker standard.FN21 Conversely, in J.S. v. Bethlehem Area School District, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court found, under the Tinker standard, a school could punish off-campus speech because “where speech that is aimed at a specific school and/or its personnel is brought onto the school campus or accessed at school by its originator, the speech will be considered on-campus speech.”FN22

2.      The Foreseeability Test

Under the foreseeability test, courts justify extending Tinker to “off-campus” speech because of an excerpt in Tinker which states, [C]onduct by the student, in class or out of it, which for any reason- whether it stems from time, place, or type of behavior- materially disrupts the classwork or involves substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of other is, of course, not immunized by the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech.FN23   Both the Second and Third Circuits have held that a school may regulate Internet student speech if it “poses a reasonably foreseeable risk of disruption.”FN24 The Second Circuit held in Wisniewski v. Board of Education Weedsport Central School District that a student-created image of a pistol firing at a teacher’s head was unprotected speech and the school could regulate it.FN25 In J.S. v. Blue Mountain School District, an eighth grader created a false profile of a school principal suggesting he was a pedophile and sex addict.FN26 The Third Circuit combined the Tinker and Fraser standards to hold that, under a different set of facts and circumstances, the school would be permitted to punish a student without constitutional violation. FN27

3.      The “Standard First” Approach

Under the “standard first” approach, courts apply existing Supreme Court standards to a particular fact pattern and determine if any of these standards permit the school to prohibit the speech.FN28 Using this approach, a district court in Killion v. Franklin Reg. School District held that a student e-mail with offensive remarks about the school’s athletic director was protected speech under Tinker because it did not run afoul of the “substantial disruption” test.FN29

III.      State Legislatures’ Response

The confusion in the judicial branch has generated a need for state legislatures to enact statutes more clearly delineating schools’ scope of authority. Currently, forty-nine states have bullying statutes.FN30 Sixteen of these specifically address the issue of cyberbullying, with seven including “off-campus” cyberbullying as a problem within schools’ purview.FN31 Cyberbullying statues provide courts with a definitive means of addressing Internet student speech. A uniform approach offers a sense of predictability and stability such that all affected parties are on notice of potential liability for violations. A statute permits state and district school boards to craft policies explicitly articulating schools’ authority over the Internet. Furthermore, cyberbullying statutes reduce the possibility of unreasonable infringement of non-student speech because they define the parameters for the balancing of the two interests occurs.

IV.      Kentucky’s Proposed Response: Amendments to KRS 158.148 and KRS 525.070

To date, Kentucky has not adopted a separate cyberbullying statute or included cyberbullying within its statutory definition of “bullying” or “harassment.” The General Assembly has considered the issue since 2007, proposing numerous amendments to existing statutes which have subsequently stalled in committee.FN32 This indicates that the House sees the need to formulate a response to cyberbullying.

A.    2008 Ky. House Bill No. 91

In 2008, Kentucky’s legislature attempted to pass four versions of Ky. House Bill No. 91; the first contained no reference to cyberbullying.FN33 KRS 158.148 stated school codes must prohibit harassment, intimidation, and bullying; these terms were defined narrowly by KRS 158.441 such that communications referred only to “written” communications occurring on-campus, during a school sponsored activity, or on school transportation.FN34 In the context of a cyberbullying case, a court could view this limitation as possibly including or excluding electronic media because the statute is unclear whether “written” communication means only physical communication. The geographic constraint presents the same shortcoming seen in other states because it would prohibit a court from granting schools the authority to regulate off-campus Internet student speech, like cyberbullying. The third and fourth versions contained a notable change. The amended version of KRS 525.080 specifically stated a student would be guilty of harassing communications if he or she sent an electronic communication “which a reasonable person . . . should know would cause the other student to suffer fear of physical harm, intimidation, humiliation, or embarrassment, and which serves not purpose of legitimate communication.”FN35 While it does not explicitly use the term cyberbullying, this marked the first time the Kentucky legislature acknowledged and addressed the issue.

B.     2011 Ky. House Bill No. 370

House Bill 370 proposed shifting some of the language discussed above. The amended version of 158.148 would specifically reference cyberbullying and require schools to include it in their discipline codes.FN36 The House defined cyberbullying as any electronic communication intended to: (1) physically harm a student or their property, (2) substantially interfere with educational opportunities, (3) create an intimidating or threatening education environment, or (4) cause a substantial disruption to the school.FN37 This expansive view of cyberbullying suggests the House was growing increasingly aware of the many ways cyberbullying manifests. Nevertheless, the continued geographical limitation on the school’s authority to address cyberbullying creates the risk that schools will be unable to address a significant amount of Internet student speech and will continue to see the types of disruptions the legislature seeks to avoid.

C.    2012 Ky. House Bill No. 490

House Bill 490 is the most recent set of amendments. “Cyberbullying” is now encapsulated in KRS 158.441’s definition of “bullying”; “electronic acts” is a type of bullying and is defined as “an act committed through the use of a cellular telephone, computer, pager, personal communication device, or other electronic communication device” to inflict mental or physical harm on another student.FN38

V.      Recommendation

The steps taken by the House of Kentucky’s General Assembly are commendable, but these proposals do not provide schools with the necessary tools to reach a significant amount of Internet student speech. The geographic constraint on schools’ authority means administrators will be unable to address an issue until it makes its way onto campus.

A.    Shortcoming of Proposed Kentucky Amendments and the Need to Recognize Cyberbullying as an Important, Perhaps Compelling State Interest

The proposed legislation discussed above, if enacted, means that Kentucky schools will be unable to address a potential disruption until it becomes an actual disruption. This would require administrators to act reactively rather than proactively. Such an approach undermines the notion that schools may act conducive to their primary objectives of safety and education.This limitation may generate more issues than it solves. For example, if schools are permitted to regulate only “on campus” Internet student speech, can schools only monitor speech on school computers or other electronic media? Is it relevant that a student posted a harmful remark during school hours using their cell phone? Would it matter if the school district’s discipline code prohibited the use of privately owned cell phones during regular school hours? The Supreme Court acknowledged schools have an important, if not compelling, interest in deterring drug use amongst students because it is essentially antithetical to schools’ education mission.FN39Similarly, cyberbullying is antithetical to schools’ education mission. Its constant and pervasive nature has a direct impact on schools manifesting in increased academic problems, anxiety, depression, severe isolation, a tendency to carry weapons, and suicide.FN40 Based on the problems caused by cyberbullying, it is imperative that the Kentucky General Assembly succeed in not only passing amended statutes recognizing cyberbullying as an issue in public schools, but also replacing the confining geographic language with a more flexible standard allowing schools to respond preemptively without being overly inclusive.

B.     Vermont and Massachusetts: Models for New Kentucky Legislation

Unlike Kentucky, Vermont and Massachusetts have enacted legislation addressing cyberbullying that extends schools’ authority beyond campus premises.FN41 Vermont’s statute states that bullying includes cyberbullying that “does not occur during the school day on school property, on a school bus, or at a school-sponsored activity and can be shown to pose a clear and substantial interference with another student’s right to access educational programs.” Massachusetts’s legislation is similar.FN42 The Massachusetts legislation permits schools to regulate activity occurring off-campus “if the bullying creates a hostile environment at school for the victim, infringes on the rights of the victim at school or materially and substantially disrupts the education process or the orderly operation of a school.”FN43 The language of these statutes is similar to the foreseeability approach recognized by some courts because both permit school regulation when there is still the possibility of preventing a substantial disruption, thus preserving the school environment.FN44 Vermont and Massachusetts explicitly define the student actions which are considered cyberbullying, much like the definitions seen in Ky. House Bill No. 370.FN45 This specificity provides schools and courts with a clearer understanding of what speech the statute governs. Additionally, both states require local school districts to develop procedures to address cyberbullying including the response and investigation of possible cyberbullying, to define disciplinary actions for offenders, and to develop programs to raise awareness about cyberbullying.FN46 These requirements safeguard against overreach by public schools and demonstrate that it is possible for a state to enact cyberbullying legislation extending beyond the school’s physical parameters while still not trampling on freedom of speech.

C.    Proposed Kentucky Legislation for Online Student Speech

The Kentucky legislature’s primary focus should be recognizing cyberbullying as a distinct, unique issue in public schools. A good start would be combining the approaches taken by Massachusetts and Vermont to establish a separate definition for cyberbullying under KRS 158.441 because that combination would signal the General Assembly’s awareness of cyberbullying and would be consistent with the unique characteristics of cyberbullying. The current definition of cyberbullying in KRS 158.441 is susceptible to overreach by public schools because the only qualification on what constitutes actionable bullying is that it cause mental or physical harm.FN47 A school, for example, could determine a student was in violation if the victimized student claims to have been embarrassed or reduced to tears. A standard such easily manipulated would be improper because schools would have virtually unchecked policing powers. A better definition of cyberbullying in KRS 158.441 would read as follows: “Cyberbullying” is bullying through the use of technology or any electronic communication including, but not limited to, the transfer of signs, signals, writing, images, sounds, data, or intelligence of any nature transmitted by, an electronic medium including those which the creator assumes another person’s identity or knowingly impersonates another as the author of posted content or messages. Additionally, it includes the distribution by electronic means of a communication to more than one person or the posting of material on an electronic medium that may be accessed by one or more persons. A student will be determined to have committed an act of cyberbullying against another student if the following conditions are met. The act: (1) is repeated over time; (2) is intended to ridicule, humiliate, or intimidate the victim; and (3) occurs during the school day on school property, on a school bus, or at a school-sponsored activity, or before or after the school day on a school bus or at a school-sponsored activity. (4) does not occur during one of the on-campus activities discussed above, but can be shown to pose a clear and substantial interference with another student’s right to access educational programs.FN48 This definition has several benefits. First, it narrows the scope of Internet speech subject to regulation, reducing potential infringement of constitutionally protected speech. Second, it recognizes the unique nature of student Internet speech. Third, it outlines a clear analytical framework for Kentucky courts to use in future cyberbullying lawsuits, resulting in increased predictability. Fourth, it puts all potential parties on notice of the types of Internet speech consider within the school’s purview. Last, this construction of cyberbullying is consistent with the standard articulated in Tinker. While Kentucky courts would be recognizing a school’s authority “beyond the schoolhouse gate,” this authority would stem from the likelihood the speech will negatively impact students within the school environment. Thus, widening the scope of school-regulated speech would permit the Kentucky legislature and courts to continue to respect the sanctity of the schoolhouse gate.

Conclusion

The Internet has radically changed the framework for student speech analysis causing lower courts to respond in varied, and sometimes surprising, ways. Previously, off-campus student speech was distinctly beyond the schoolhouse gate and free from constraint. This spatial distinction has declined with the prevalence and pervasiveness of the Internet, which has blurred the borders between many areas of regulation. While certainly not all off-campus speech is subject to schools’ authority, those that would create a substantial disruption should be subject to school regulation.FN49 In order to navigate the challenges presented in addressing off-campus Internet student speech, Kentucky’s General Assembly needs to enact an amended version of statutes 158.148 and 158.441. The geographical limitation contained within 158.148 needs to be replaced with more expansive language, similar to Massachusetts’ and Vermont’s statutes.FN50 Additionally, 158.441 needs to provide a definition of cyberbullying. Such changes would recognize that a geographical distinction is inadequate for schools to provide a safe and productive learning environment. Without these changes, courts will be left with little to base their decisions on except a “very tricky calculus,”FN51which will not produce the outcomes necessary to prevent future victims of cyberbullying.

FN1. Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Cmty. Sch. Dist., 393 U.S. 503, 506 (1969).

FN2. New York 14-Year-Old Kameron Jacobsen Bullied to Death, CBS New York, http://newyork.cbsloc al.com/2011/09/15/exclusive-new-york-14-year-old-bullied-to-death/ (last visited June 3, 2013).

FN3. Id.; Parents Speak Out on Bullying After Son’s Death, CBS New York, http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-500172_162-20106690.html (last visited June 3, 2013).

FN4. New York 14-Year Old Kameron Jacobsen Bullied to Death, supra note 2.

FN5. Rachael was a Bullitt County student when she committed suicide after receiving threatening anonymous e-mails from classmates. Janelle McDonald, Family of Teen who Took Her Own Life Pushing Lawmakers for Anti-Bullying Ordinance, Wave3 News, http://www.wave3.com/story/6029598/family-of-teen-who-took-her-own-life-pushing-lawmakers-for-anti-bullying-ordinance (last visited June 3, 2013) (stating Rachael received an e-mail saying, “ ‘[I am not] going to put [you] in the hospital, [I’m] going to put [you] in the morgue.’”).

FN6. Katherine Ng, Digital Dilemmas: Responding to Cyberbullying in Nova Scotia, 22 EDUC. & L.J. 63, 65-66 (2012); see also Gwenn Schrugin O’Keeffe, Kathleen Clarke-Pearson, and the Council on Communications and Media, Clinical Report: The Impact of Social Media on Children, Adolescents, and Families, 127 Pediatrics 800, 800-01 (2011). (stating the internet has assisted in self-identification by adolescents).

FN7. Ng, supra note 6 at 68; see also Sameer Hinduja and Justin W. Patchin, Cyberbullying Research Summary: Cyberbullying and Strain, 1, 1 http://www.cyberbullying.us/cyberbullying_ and_strain_research_fact_sheet.pdf (last visited June 3, 2013).

FN8. Ng, supra note 6 at 69; see also Hinduja and Patchin, supra note 7 at 1.

FN9. Ng, supra note 6 at 70; Allison Belnap, Comment, Tinker at a Breaking Point: Why the Specter of Cyberbullying Cannot Excuse Impermissible Public School Regulation of Off-Campus Student Speech, BYU L. Rev. 501, 501 (2011) (quoting Jeff Lieberman, Rutgers Student’s Suicide Prompts privacy, Cyber-Bullying Debates (PBS NewsHour broadcast Oct. 1, 2010), transcript available at http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/social_issues/july-dec10/rutgers1_10-01.html); see also Hinduja and Patchin, supra note 7 at 1.

FN10. Ng, supra note 6 at 68.

FN11. Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Cmty. Sch. Dist., 393 U.S. 503, 506, 514 (1969).

FN12. Id. at 514. (“As we have discussed, the record does not demonstrate any facts which might reasonably have led school authorities to forecast substantial disruption of or material interference with school activities, and no disturbances or disorders on the school premises in fact occurred.”).

FN13. See Bethlehem Sch. Dist. v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675, 685-86 (1986). The Court later stated in a footnote the Fraser standard is separate and distinct from Tinker. Hazelwood Sch. Dist. v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260, 271, n. 4. (“The decision in Fraser rested on the ‘vulgar,’ ‘lewd,’ and ‘plainly offensive’ character if a speech delivered at an official school assembly rather than on any propensity of the speech to ‘materially disrup[t] class work or involv[e] substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others.”) (quoting Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Cmty. Sch. Dist., 393 U.S. 503, 513 (1969)).

FN14. Fraser, 478 U.S. at 683, 685-86.

FN15. Hazelwood, 484 U.S. at 281.

FN16. Id. at 273.

FN17. Morse v. Frederick, 484 U.S. 393, 403 (2007).

FN18. See Caitlin May, Comment, “Internet-Savvy Students” and Bewildered Educators: Student Internet Speech is Creating New Legal Issues for the Educational Community, 58 Cath. U. L. Rev. 1105, 1111 (2009) (analyzing the Court’s rationale in Hazelwood); Harriet A. Hoder, Note, Supervising Cyberspace: A Simple Threshold for Public School Jurisdiction over Student’s Online Activity, 50 B.C. L. Rev. 1563, 1574-75 (2009).

FN19. Stephanie Klupinski, Note, Getting Past the Schoolhouse Gate: Rethinking Student Speech in the Digital Age, 71 Ohio St. L.J. 611, 625 (2010) (quoting Robert D. Richards & Clay Calvert, Columbine Fallout: The Long-Term Effects on Free Expression Take Hold in Public Schools, 83 B.U. L. Rev. 1089, 1139 (2003)); May, supra note 18 at 1128-31.

FN20. May, supra note 18 at 1128; Hoder, supra note 18 at 1583-85; see also Sandy S. Li, The Need for a New, Uniform Standard: The Continued Threat of Internet-Related Student Speech, 26 Loy. L.A. Ent. L. Rev. 65, 78; Belnap, supra note 9, at 510, Klupinski, supra note 19, at 627.

FN21. Mahaffey ex rel. Mahaffey v. Aldrich, 236 F. Supp. 2d 779, 782-84 (E.D. Mich. 2002) (“In the case at bar, there is no evidence that the website interfered with the work of the school or that any other student's rights were impinged.”).

FN22. J.S. v. Bethlehem Area Sch. Dist., 807 A. 2d 847, 865 (Pa. 2002).

FN23. Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Cmty. Sch. Dist., 393 U.S. 503, 513 (1969) (emphasis added).

FN24. Wisniewski v. Bd. of Educ. Weedsport Cent. Sch. Dist., 494 F.3d. 34, 38 (2d Cir. 2007); J.S. ex rel. Snyder v. Blue Mountain Sch. Dist., 650 F.3d 915 (3d Cir. 2011).

FN25. Wisniewski, 494 F.3d at 36-40.

FN26. Blue Mountain, 650 F.3d at 920.

FN27. Id. at 928, 932-33 (holding J.S.’s suspension was a violation of the First Amendment because it did not cause a substantial disruption in the school under the Tinker standard).

FN28. Klupinski, supra note 19 at 638-39.

FN29. Killion v. Franklin Reg. Sch. Dist., 136 F. Supp. 2d 446, 455 (W.D. Penn. 2001) (“Although the intended audience was undoubtedly connected to Franklin Regional High School, the absence of threats or actual disruption lead us to conclude that Paul's suspension was improper.”).

FN30. See Ala. Code §16-28-3.1(b)(6) (2013); Alaska Stat. Ann. §14.33.200 (2013); Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §15-341(37) (2013); Ark. Code Ann. §6-18-514(b)(2) (2013); Cal. Educ. Code §32261(d) (2013); Colo. Rev. Stat. §22-32-109.1(1)(b) (2013); Conn. Gen. Stat. §10-222d(a)(1) (2013); Del. Code Ann. tit. 14 §4112D(a) (2013); Fla. Stat. §1006.147(a) (2013); Ga. Code §20-2-751.4 (2013); Haw. Code R. § 8-19-2 (2013); Idaho Code Ann. §18-917A(2) (2013); 105 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/27-23.7(b) (2013); Ind. Code §20-33-8-0.2 (2013); Iowa Code §280.28(2)(b) (2013); Kan. Stat. Ann. §72-8256(a)(1) (2013); Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. §158.183(1)-(2) (2013); La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §17:416(d) (2013); Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 20-A(2)(B) §6554 (2013); Md. Code Ann. Education §7-424.3(a) (2013); Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 71, § 37O(a) (2013); Mich. Comp. Laws §380.1310b(8)b (2013); Minn. Stat. §121A.0695 (2013); Miss. Code Ann. §37-11-67(1) (2013); Mo. Rev. Stat. § 160.775(2) (2013); Neb. Rev. Stat. § 79-2, 137(2) (2013); Nev. Rev. Stat. §388.135 (2013); N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §193-F:3(I) (2013); N.J. Stat. Ann. §18A:37-14 (2013); N.M. Stat. Ann. §6.12.7 (2013); N.Y. Educ. Law §11(7) (McKinney 2013); N.C. Gen. Stat. §115C-407.15(a) (2013); N.D. Cent. Code §15.1-19-17(1) (2013); Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §3313.666(A)(2) (2013); 2013 Okla. Sess. Laws 311; Or. Rev. Stat. §339.351(2) (2013); 24 Pa. Cons. Stat. §13-1301.1-A(e) (2013); R.I. Gen. Laws §16-21-33(a) (2013); S.C. Code Ann. § 59-73-120(1) (2013); S.D. Codified Laws §13-32-15 (2013); Tenn. Code Ann. §49-6-1015(3) (2013); Tex. Educ. Code Ann. §37.0832(a) (2013); Utah Code Ann. §53A-11a-201 (2013); Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 16, § 11(26), (32) (2013); Va. Code Ann. §22.1-279.6 (2013); Wash. Rev. Code Ann. §28A.300.285(2) (2013); W. Va. Code Ann. §18-2C-2(a) (2013); Wis. Stat. §118.46(1) (2013); Wyo. Stat. Ann. §21-4-312(a) (2013).

FN31. Statutes specifically referencing cyberbullying include: Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Kansas, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Tennessee, Utah, and Washington. The following states have permitted schools to regulate and punish off campus behavior: Arkansas, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Tennessee, and Vermont. See Ark. Code Ann. §5-71-217(c) (West  (2013); Cal. Educ. Code §32261 (West 2013); Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. §10-222d(a)(6), (b)(15) (West 2013); Haw. Code R. § 8-19-2 (2013); Kan. Stat. Ann. §72-8256(a)(2)-(3), (c) (West 2013); La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §40.7 (2013); Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 71, § 37O(b) (West 2013); Mo. Ann Rev. Stat. § 160.775 (West 2013); Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. §388.135(7) (West 2013); N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §193-F:3(V) (2013); N.Y. Educ. Law §11(7) (McKinney 2013); N.C. Gen. Stat. Ann. §115C-407.15(a) (West 2013); Or. Rev. Stat. Ann. §339.351 (West 2013); Tenn. Code Ann. §49-6-1015 (West 2013); Utah Code Ann. §53A-11a-201(1)-(2) (West 2013); Wash. Rev. Code Ann. §28A.300.285 (West 2013).

FN32. H.B. 91, 2007 H.R., Reg. Sess. (Ky. Nov. 26, 2007); H.B. 91, 2008 H.R., Reg. Sess. (Ky. Jan. 8, 2008); H.B. 91, 2008 H.R., Reg. Sess. (Ky. Mar. 19, 2008); H.B. 91, 2008 H.R., Reg. Sess. (Ky. Apr. 15, 2008); H.B. 370, 2011 H.R., Reg. Sess. (Ky. 2011); H.B. 336, 2012 H.R., Reg. Sess. (Ky. 2012); H.B. 490, 2012 H.R., Reg. Sess. (Ky. 2012).

FN33. H.B. 91, 2007 H.R., Reg. Sess. (Ky. Nov. 26, 2007); H.B. 91, 2008 H.R., Reg. Sess. (Ky. Jan. 8, 2008); H.B. 91, 2008 H.R., Reg. Sess. (Ky. Mar. 19,2008); H.B. 91, 2008 H.R., Reg. Sess. (Ky. Apr. 15, 2008).

FN34. H.B. 91, 2007 H.R., Reg. Sess. (Ky. Nov. 26,2007) (“‘Harassment, intimidation, or bullying’ means a repeated verbal, nonverbal, or written communication transmitted; repeated physical acts committed; or any other repeat behavior committed by a student against another student on school premises, on school-sponsored transportation, or at a school-sponsored event…”).

FN35. H.B. 91, 2008 H.R., Reg. Sess. (Ky. Mar. 19, 2008); H.B. 91, 2008 H.R., Reg. Sess. (Ky. Apr. 15, 2008).

FN36. H.B. 370, 2011 H.R., Reg. Sess. (Ky. 2011) (“Amend KRS 158.148 to require the discipline code to prohibit harassment, intimidation, bullying, or cyberbullying against students…”) (emphasis added).

FN. 37.Id.

FN. 38. H.B. 490, 2012 H.R., Reg. Sess. (Ky. 2012).

FN 39. Morse v. Frederick, 551 U.S. 393, 407 (2007) (stating that prior Supreme Court cases have recognized the dangers of illegal drug use and schools’ interest in protecting students from the dangers of drug abuse).

FN. 40. See Ng, supra note 6 at 70; see also Natasha Rose Manuel, Cyber-bullying: Its Recent Emergence and Needed Legislation to Protect Adolescent Victims, 13 Loy. J. Pub. Int. L. 219, 225-28 (2011), Hoder, supra note 18 at 1566.

FN. 41. Mass. Gen. Laws. ch. 71, § 37O(b) (2013); Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 16, § 11(a)(32) (2013).

FN. 42. Tit. 16, § 11(a)(32)(C)(ii) (emphasis added); ch. 71, § 37O(b).

FN. 43. Ch. 71, § 37O(b).

FN. 44. Compare ch. 71, § 37O(b) and tit. 16, § 11(a)(32)(C))(ii) with Wisniewski v. Bd. of Educ. Weedsport Cent. Sch. Dist., 494 F.3d. 34, 38-39 (2d Cir. 2007) and J.S. v. Blue Mountain Sch. Dist., 650 F.3d 915, 932-33 (3d Cir. 2009).

FN. 45. Compare H.B. 336,  H.R., Reg. Sess. (Ky. 2012) and H.B. 370, H.R., Reg. Sess. (Ky. 2012) with ch. 71, § 370 and tit. 16, § 11.

FN. 46. Ch. 71, § 37O(c)-(h); tit. 16, § 11.

FN. 47. KRS 158. 441 states “‘Harassment, intimidation, or bullying means: Any intentional written, verbal, electronic, physical act that a student has exhibited toward another student more than once that causes mental or physical harm to the other student.” H.B. 490, H.R., Reg. Sess. (Ky. 2012) (emphasis added).

FN. 48. This proposed statutory construction is based on the legislation in Kentucky, Massachusetts, and Vermont. See H.B. 370, H.R., Reg. Sess. (Ky. 2011); ch. 71 § 37O(a)-(b); tit. 16, § 11(a)(32).

FN. 49. May, supra note 18 at 1141, Li, supra note 20 at 87-91, Klupinski, supra note 20 at 643-50.

FN. 50. Compare H.B. 336, H.R., Reg. Sess. (Ky. 2012) and H.B. 490, H.R., Reg. Sess. (Ky. 2012) with ch. 71, § 37O(b) and tit. 16, § 11(a)(32)(C)(ii).

FN. 51 May, supra note 18 at 1141. (quoting Victoria Kim, Suit Blends Internet, Free Speech, School, L.A. Times, Aug. 3, 2008, at B1).