Diop v. Bur. of Prof’l and Occupational Aff.

In this original jurisdiction action, Petitioners challenged the constitutionality of specific provisions of the statute commonly known as the Beauty Culture Law (Law), which requires a license to engage in the commercial practice of natural hair braiding. Petitioners challenged this regulatory regime both facially and as applied to them. Before the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court were the preliminary objections of the Bureau of Professional and Occupational Affairs and the State Board of Cosmetology of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (collectively, “Respondents”). In summary, the Court sustained Respondents’ preliminary objection to Petitioner Henry’s standing to challenge the constitutionality of the Law’s licensing requirements, as applied to her. The Court sustained Respondents’ preliminary objection to Count I insofar as it asserted a facial substantive due process challenge to the licensing requirements. Finally, because Petitioners failed to state a legally sufficient equal protection claim, either facially or as applied to them, the Court sustained Respondents’ preliminary objection to Count II. Petitioners’ claim in Count I that the Law’s licensing requirements, as applied to them, violate their right to substantive due process will proceed for the filing of an answer by Respondents.

Search entire site by keyword...

Search for Summaries by Hashtag...

Past Opinion Summaries