One of Meadows' co-plaintiffs, Shamille Peters of New Orleans, has worked in the floral department at Albertson's, handled the floral arrangements for several weddings, and taken floral design courses at Delgado Community College. She has failed the licensing exam five times.

The third plaintiff, Barbara Peacock of Shreveport, who grew up making floral arrangements with her mother, wants to open a wedding chapel. Because she couldn't afford to pay a full-time florist, she realized she'd have to pass the state licensing exam. Like Peters, she took courses at the local community college. After failing the test the first time, she took another floral design class, this one taught by a florist who has served as an exam judge. It didn't help.

The exam is widely considered a joke, even by licensed florists, many of whom say it's highly subjective and requires outmoded techniques. But even if it were a valid measure of flower arranging ability, it would not be a valid exercise of government power. There is no reason to believe that consumers are incapable of judging for themselves whether a flower arrangement looks nice.

The Institute for Justice is asking a federal judge to declare the licensing requirement a violation of rights guaranteed by the 14th Amendment: due process, equal protection and "privileges or immunities," which include the freedom to earn a living. It argues that the regulations fail the "rational basis" test because they do not serve a legitimate public purpose.

Seeming to concede that point, Louisiana Agriculture Commissioner Bob Odom told A.P. that if the floral industry asked him to scrap the licensing system he'd support legislation to do so. Institute for Justice attorney Clark Neily notes that "asking licensed florists whether they wish to throw the industry open to all comers is like asking the fox if it wants to stop guarding the henhouse."