« Ind. Courts - Governor appoints LaPorte Superior Court Judge | Main | Ind. Courts - Supreme Court receives $1 million technology grant »

Friday, August 12, 2005

Ind. Decisions - Court holds BMV ID rules invalid

Villegas et al v. Joel Silverman (8/12/05)

Vaidlik, Judge

Case Summary. This is a class action against the Commissioner of the Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles brought by three illegal aliens (collectively, “the plaintiffs”) who are unable to obtain State of Indiana driver licenses and/or identification cards from the Bureau of Motor Vehicles (“BMV”) because of new identification requirements, which were enacted in 2002 without promulgation.

The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the BMV. Specifically, the trial court found that the plaintiffs lacked standing, that it did not have the power to review the BMV’s identification requirements, and that there was no merit to the plaintiffs’ constitutional challenge to the requirements.

We conclude that the plaintiffs have standing to challenge the new identification requirements. In addition, we conclude that the identification requirements constitute an administrative rule, which was not promulgated pursuant to the Indiana Administrative Rules and Procedures Act (“ARPA”), Indiana Code § 4-22-2 et seq. Because the requirements were not promulgated in accordance with the ARPA, they are void and without effect. We therefore reverse the trial court. [emphasis added]

Beginning on p. 16, the court discusses whether the BMV's new identification requirements constitute a "rule" within the meaning of IC 4-22-2-3(b):

The identification requirements here indeed constitute a rule. They are agency statements of general applicability that are designed to have the effect of law and implement the BMV’s policy of tightening the requirements to obtain new issuances of Indiana driver licenses, permits, and identification cards. The requirements are designed to have the effect of law because if an applicant does not produce the necessary documentation, then he or she cannot obtain a driver license, permit, or identification card. The requirements apply prospectively to all applicants seeking new issuances of driver licenses, permits, and identification cards as of a certain date. In fact, the record shows that an applicant who was able to obtain a driver license before July 15, 2002, was not able to obtain a license once the new identification requirements went into effect. Additionally, the requirements implement the BMV’s policy of trying to prevent identity fraud.

The new identification requirements do not relate primarily to the BMV’s internal policies, procedures, or organization. The primary impact of the identification requirements is external, and it is the primary impact that is paramount. * * * [H]ere it is clear that the identification requirements primarily impact applicants seeking new issuances of driver licenses, permits, and identification cards because it sets forth what is essential for them to obtain such cards.

We finally note the trial court’s determination that even if it were to invalidate the identification requirements, the result would be the same. The trial court reasoned that Indiana Code § 9-24-11-2 directs the BMV to issue licenses in a manner the Bureau considers necessary and prudent and that such prudence is incapable of judicial review. Thus, if the rule were improperly promulgated, then there would be no harm because the courts could not review the rule the Bureau enacted anyway. We do not agree for two reasons. First, the rules implemented by the BMV are always judicially reviewable for constitutional implications.[15] Second, the ARPA requires rules to be adopted in accordance with the requirements of Indiana Code chapter 4-22-2. See Ind. Code § 9-15-2-1(3). These requirements dictate, among other things, public input into any proposed rule changes. The duty of the BMV to issue licenses in a manner that it deems prudent does not supercede the mandate to allow the public to participate in the rule-making process.

We hold that the new identification requirements are a rule, and because they were not promulgated in accordance with the ARPA, they are void and without effect. See Indiana-Kentucky Elec. Corp., 820 N.E.2d at 781; Blinzinger, 466 N.E.2d at 1375. The trial court erred by entering summary judgment in favor of the BMV. We therefore remand this case with instructions for the trial court to enter summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs.

Reversed and remanded with instructions.

MAY, J., and BARNES, J., concur.
_____

[15] The plaintiffs argue that even if the BMV had properly promulgated the rule, it would nevertheless be invalid because it exceeds statutory authority. The plaintiffs—citing various statutory citations—assert that no statute in Title 9 requires applicants to present either a United States birth certificate or documentation of the applicant’s immigration status; therefore, the BMV’s rule cannot require such documentation. Because the BMV did not properly promulgate the rule, we do not reach this issue.

In addition, the plaintiffs argue that the new identification requirements violate the Due Process Clause, the Equal Protection Clause, and the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution. Because the requirements are void and without effect, we do not address these constitutional arguments. To do so would be to render an advisory opinion. We have no way of knowing whether the BMV in the future will promulgate the same identification requirements or different ones.

Posted by Marcia Oddi on August 12, 2005 10:45 AM
Posted to Administrative Law | Ind. App.Ct. Decisions