| No search history |
Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

In the case of Ferguson, Attorney General of Kansas, et al. v. Skrupa, Doing Business as Credit Advisors (1962), the Supreme Court ruled in favor of a state law that prohibited debt adjusting except when performed by licensed attorneys-at-law acting within the scope and course of their practice. The appellant was Frank Skrupa who operated a business known as "Credit Advisors" which offered services to distribute debtor's funds among creditors for compensation. He challenged this law on grounds that it violated his rights under the Due Process Clause of Fourteenth Amendment because it interfered with his right to conduct a lawful occupation. The court rejected this argument stating that states have broad power to enact laws for public welfare and economic regulation is not unconstitutional merely because it may limit one's ability to profit from certain businesses or practices deemed harmful by legislative judgment. This decision marked an important shift away from previous rulings where courts often struck down economic regulations if they seemed unreasonable or unnecessary.
In the dissenting opinion for Ferguson v. Skrupa, Justice Hugo Black and Justice William O. Douglas argued that the majority's decision to uphold a Kansas law prohibiting debt adjusting except when performed by licensed attorneys was an overreach of judicial power. They contended that it is not within the Court's purview to determine whether or not a particular business practice should be allowed; such decisions are better left to legislatures who can weigh competing interests and make policy judgments based on their constituents' needs. The justices also expressed concern about protecting individual liberty against arbitrary state action, arguing that this principle should extend beyond personal freedoms explicitly mentioned in the Constitution to economic liberties as well. They believed that striking down laws which interfere with individuals' right to conduct their own businesses could serve as a check against potential abuses of legislative power.