Of Butchers, Bakers, and Casket Makers: St. Joseph Abbey v. Castille and the Fifth Circuit's Rejection of Pure Economic Protectionism as a Legitimate State Interest

Of Butchers, Bakers, and Casket Makers: St. Joseph Abbey v. Castille and the Fifth Circuit’s Rejection of Pure Economic Protectionism as a Legitimate State Interest INTRODUCTION Cutting timber, brewing beer, and making wine—the Benedictine monks strive to maintain a life of simplicity by engaging in various common trades to financially support their monastic communities. 1 Hurricane Katrina forced the monks of St. Joseph Abbey (Abbey) to find a new trade; the monks could no longer cut and sell timber since their supply was washed away by the storm. 2 As a result, turning to their century-old tradition of casket making, the Abbey’s monks began selling their handmade wooden caskets customarily used to bury their brethren. 3 For the monks, the art of casket making was the clear solution, allowing them to maintain a quiet lifestyle in furtherance of the order’s motto ora et labora —“prayer and work”; 4 however, in their quest to become more Christ-like, the monks became monastic-clad criminals. Unbeknownst to the Abbey, the monks were operating in contravention of Louisiana law, which requires that all intrastate casket sales to the public be Copyright 2015, by ALLISON B. KINGSMILL. 1. See Free the Monks and Free Enterprise: Challenging Louisiana’s Casket Cartel , INST. FOR JUSTICE, http://www.ij.org/louisiana-caskets-background-2, archived at http://perma.cc/NLP9-Z6PY (last visited Oct. 5, 2014) (“Selling caskets helps the monks pay for food and healthcare, and helps them share their belief in the noble simplicity of life and death.”). 2. St. Joseph Abbey v. Castille, 712 F.3d 215, 217 (5th Cir. 2013), cert. denied , 134 S. Ct. 423 (2013). 3. Id. (“In years past, the Abbey’s timberland provided a source of income. After Hurricane Katrina destroyed its timber, the Abbey began looking for other revenue sources. For generations the Abbey has made simple wooden caskets to bury its monks. Public interest in the Abbey’s caskets increased after two bishops were buried in Abbey caskets in the 1990s. Seeing potential in this demand, the Abbey invested $200,000 in ‘St. Joseph Woodworks,’ managed by Mark Coudrain, a deacon of the Church and an employee of the Abbey. The business plan was simple. St. Joseph Woodworks offered one product—caskets in two models, ‘monastic’ and ‘traditional,’ priced at $1,500 and $2,000 respectively, significantly lower than those offered by funeral homes.”). 4. Free the Monks and Free Enterprise: Challenging Louisiana’s Casket Cartel , supra note 1. As a Benedictine Monastery, the monks of St. Joseph Abbey follow the teachings of Saint Benedict of Nursia, a sixth-century Christian monk. Id. “This ancient tradition is encapsulated in the Benedictine motto ‘ ora et labora ’ (prayer and work). The monastic life at Saint Joseph Abbey is one of liturgical prayer, the singing of psalms, simple labor, education, and hospitality toward those seeking a contemplative respite from the world.” Id. 934 LOUISIANA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 75 made by a state-licensed funeral director at a state-licensed funeral home. 5 The Louisiana Board of Embalmers and Funeral Directors (State Board), the entity responsible for enforcing the relevant statutes and regulations, caught wind of the rising enterprise and ordered the monks to shut down their casket-making business or face heavy fines, jail time, and an injunctive lawsuit. 6 In St. Joseph Abbey v. Castille , the Abbey sought to enjoin the State Board from enforcing the casket regulations, contending that the Louisiana laws violated the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. 7 The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana found the casket regulations unconstitutional on equal protection and due process grounds. 8 On appeal, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the lower court’s decision. 9 The Fifth Circuit held that mere economic protection of the funeral industry, absent a connection to the advancement of the public good or general welfare, is not a legitimate state interest. 10 Although the monks rejoiced in their Fifth Circuit victory, the State Board swiftly petitioned the United States Supreme Court to overturn the Fifth 5. See LA REV. STAT. ANN. §§ 37:831(33), (39), § 848 (2011). 6. See id. § 37:848; Castille , 712 F.3d at 217–19. 7. St. Joseph Abbey v. Castille, 835 F. Supp. 2d 149 (E.D. La. 2011), aff’d , 712 F.3d 215 (5th Cir. 2013). The Fourteenth Amendment provides: No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. U.S. CONST. amend. XIV, § 1. 8. See Castille , 835 F. Supp. 2d at 151 (holding it “unconstitutional to require those persons who intend solely to manufacture and sell caskets be subject to the licensing requirements for funeral directors and funeral establishments”). The district court found that this requirement was in contravention of the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause, because there was no rational basis for the state to “require persons who seek to enter into the retailing of caskets to undergo the training and expense necessary to comply with these rules.” Id. at 151. In addition, the court found that “there [was] nothing in the licensing procedures that bestows any benefit to the public in the context of the retail sale of caskets,” and “[t]he license [had] no bearing on the manufacturing and sale of caskets.” Id. at 151. The court believed the “sole reason for these laws [was] the economic protection of the funeral industry which reason the Court has previously found not to be a valid government interest standing alone to provide a constitutionally valid reason for these provisions.” Id. 9. Castille , 712 F.3d at 217. 10. Id. at 226–27 . 2015] NOTE 935 Circuit’s ruling. 11 However, the Supreme Court rejected the State Board’s petition. 12 By denying the State Board’s writ of certiorari, the Supreme Court remained silent regarding the constitutionality of Louisiana’s casket laws, and thus the decision holding the law unconstitutional became final. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court has a colorful history of reviewing economic legislation very similar to Louisiana’s casket regulations. 13 Supreme Court jurisprudence has touched on the various mechanisms used to protect individuals’ economic liberties, such as the freedom to pursue a livelihood. 14 In the nineteenth century, many Supreme Court justices considered such economic liberties to be natural rights. 15 Throughout the nineteenth century until the 1930s, also known as the “ Lochner Era,” 16 the Court closely scrutinized economic laws and interpreted the Due Process Clause as protecting the freedom of contract. 17 Consequently, during that time the Supreme Court invalidated most economic 11. Petition for Writ of Certiorari, Castille v. St. Joseph Abbey, 134 S. Ct. 423 (2013) (No. 13-91). Members of the State Board filed a petition for certiorari on July 17, 2013, requesting review of the Fifth Circuit’s opinion. Id. The Board urged the Court to allow the writ, because there is a circuit split regarding whether pure economic protectionism is a legitimate governmental interest under the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses. Id. at 35. 12. Castille v. St. Joseph Abbey, 134 S. Ct. 423 (2013). 13. See infra Part I. 14. See ERWIN CHEMERINSKY, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: PRINCIPLES AND POLICES 622 (Vicki Been et al. eds., 4th ed. 2011) (“The Supreme Court’s protection of economic liberties has varied enormously over time.”). 15. Id. (“In the early nineteenth century, the Court invoked natural law principles to protect property rights.”). Justice Chase “expressed the view that the government could neither violate the provisions of the Constitution nor infringe rights that are part of the natural law.” Id. at 624. He stated, “there are certain vital principles in our free Republic governments, which will determine and overrule an apparent and flagrant abuse of legislative power . . . An ACT of the legislature . . . contrary to the great first principles of the social compact, cannot be considered a rightful exercise of legislative authority.” Id. at 625. 16. The era was named after the famous case of Lochner v. New York , 198 U.S. 45 (1905) (finding that a law restricting the number of hours bakers could work was unconstitutional). 17. CHEMERINSKY, supra note 14, at 630. Throughout the “ Lochner Era,” the Supreme Court stated that: [F]reedom of contract is a basic right protected as liberty and property rights under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment . . . the Court [has] said that liberty includes the right ‘to enter into all contracts which may be proper, necessary, and essential’ to carrying out a trade or profession. Id. The Court said that the state could limit the freedom of contract only to serve a valid police purpose, and it was the judiciary’s responsibility to closely scrutinize such legislation to make sure it served a valid police purpose. Id. at 630–31. 936 LOUISIANA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 75 legislation as illegitimate interferences with the freedom of contract. 18 However, in the 1930s, the Court changed course and rejected the protection of freedom of contract as a liberty interest under the Due Process Clause. 19 The Court has not invalidated a single piece of economic legislation on due process or equal protection grounds since, opting for a more deferential, rational basis review of state laws. 20 Now, in order to satisfy the outermost limits of due process and equal protection, economic legislation must be supported by a legitimate governmental purpose, and the state’s interest must be rationally related to the regulation. 21 Applying these minimal due process requirements, lower courts now often defer to the judgment of state...