AG 95-05.

• Case Date: March 06, 1995
• Court: Rhode Island

Rhode Island Attorney General Opinions 1995. AG 95-05. OFFICIAL OPINION 95-05March 6, 1995The Honorable Lincoln AlmondGovernor, State of Rhode Island State House Providence, Rhode Island 02903 Dear Governor Almond: I write in response to former Governor Sundlun's letter of December 8, 1994 requesting an advisory opinion concerning whether the Rhode Island Depositors Economic Protection Corporation ("DEPCO") may adopt a policy of refusing to sell land to or settle debts with convicted criminals. This question raises numerous and complex issues of law. However, I have endeavored to determine the basic guidelines concerning any such proposed regulation and provide the following response. DEPCO is a public corporation and instrumentality of the state, with a distinct legal existence from the state, created by the legislature to carry out the provisions of Title 42, Chapter 116 of the Rhode Island General Laws. R.I. Gen. Laws § 42-116-4. It has the powers to adopt and amend bylaws for the governance of its affairs, the administration of its assets and the conduct of its business. R.I. Gen. Laws § 42-116-5(a). It further has the power to adopt rules, regulations, standards, policies, procedures, guidelines, and statements necessary or incidental to the power and purposes of the corporation, which the corporation considers necessary or appropriate to carry out Title 42, Chapter 116. R.I. Gen. Laws § 42-116-10. You question whether DEPCO, in seeking to protect the taxpayers of the State of Rhode Island and depositors of "collapsed" credit unions, may refuse to sell property to or settle debts with convicted criminals. This question necessitates analysis of whether or not such a proposed rule and regulation would violate any constitutional right of a convicted criminal. Those rights would include equal protection and due process rights. In analyzing whether a law, rule or regulation violates equal protection, a court must first determine the appropriate standard of review. Where a regulation does not restrict a fundamental right or adversely affect members of a protected class, it will pass constitutional muster if the classification bears of a rational relationship to a legitimate government interest (the so-called "rational basis" test). Hill v. Gill, 703 F.Supp. 1034 (1st Cir. 1989), aff'd 893 F.2d 1325, citing Parham v. Hughes, 441 U.S...