Greg Mills v. State of Arizona

Argument summary

AI-generated — not an official transcript or court record.

1. Counsel for Mr. Mills argues that requiring him to obtain a professional engineering license is unreasonable because other engineers performing similar non-construction product design work are not required to be licensed.
2. Mr. Mills' counsel contends that the Arizona Supreme Court's decision in *Arizona Downs* improperly abandoned the state's historical reasonableness test for economic liberty in favor of a deferential federal rational basis review that ignores factual evidence.
3. The State argues that licensing is justified because engineering is a technical field where the general public lacks the skills to evaluate the quality and safety of the work, necessitating proof of qualifications for those offering services directly to the public.
4. Justices questioned whether the distinction between full-time employees (who are exempt from licensing) and independent contractors (who must be licensed) is reasonable, noting that the work performed remains identical regardless of employment status.
5. Counsel for Mr. Mills requested the Court to overrule *Arizona Downs* to the extent it applies federal *Williamson v. Lee Optical* standards, arguing that case involved unique gambling regulations and should not control common occupational licensing.
6. The State maintained that while facts matter, a plaintiff must allege specific facts that overcome the presumption of legislative rationality, rather than simply arguing the law is unwise or imperfectly tailored.

Recordings

1. Recording · PT49M26S · Captions available