In a recent decision, the Georgia Supreme Court held that the State Constitution protects Georgians’ right to pursue an occupation of their choosing free from unreasonable government interference. The case directly concerned the rights of lactation care providers (LCs) to practice with alternative licensing credentials, though it could potentially have a far-reaching impact on other professionally licensed occupations in Georgia.
In Jackson, et al. v. Raffensperger, Plaintiffs Mary Jackson and her non-profit lactation consulting organization, Reaching Our Sisters Everywhere, Inc. (“ROSE”) filed a lawsuit against the Secretary of State challenging the constitutionality of the Georgia Lactation Consultant Practice Act (the “Act”), which prohibits the practice of “lactation care and services” for compensation without a license from the Secretary of State. Plaintiffs alleged that under the Act, they were not eligible for a license because they lacked a privately issued credential that the Act requires for licensure, even though they had other private credentials that made them equally competent to provide lactation care and services to the public. Plaintiffs argued that the Act violated their constitutional rights.
On Appeal, the Georgia Supreme Court recognized that LCs – like other practitioners in the healthcare field – can obtain certification from multiple private accrediting entities. Here, the Court found that the two most prominent certifications are Certified Lactation Counselor (“CLC”), which Jackson and many members of ROSE had, and International Board-Certified Lactation Consultant (“IBCLC”). While there were significant differences in the credentialing requirements between CLC and IBCLC, the Court recognized that CLCs and IBCLCs are equally competent to provide lactation care and services to mothers and babies and there was no evidence that CLCs or other unlicensed LCs have ever harmed public health, safety, or welfare. Nonetheless, the Act only permitted IBCLCs to be licensed by the State. The Court noted that discrepancy and found it to be an unreasonable government interference on LCs to pursue their occupation.
Continuing its analysis, the Court found held that the Georgia Constitution affirmatively protects an individual’s right to pursue the lawful occupation of her choosing free from unreasonable government interference.
While this case exclusively concerned lactation care providers, Georgia’s licensed healthcare and other professionals should be aware that the Court’s holding could potentially be used to challenge the State’s licensing protocols in other professions. Provided that practitioners can show that the alternative licensing entity is as meritorious and safe as State-approved licensing entity, those practitioners may also have a path to valid licensure by the State.