A law that dictates how landlords must alleviate potential lead hazards in their rental units has been upheld by the state Supreme Court after a group of landlords challenged its constitutionality.

The Lead Hazard Mitigation Act was passed in 2002 and went into effect in late 2005. It requires landlords to take a lead-hazard awareness class and prove that their properties are up to state Department of Health standards by having them certified as lead-safe every two years, or each time a new tenant moves in. The law also lists exemptions from enforcement, including landlords who live in two-  and three-unit properties that they rent.

A landlord association, founded by Rep. Joseph A. Trillo, R-Warwick, argued that the exemptions violated their right to equal protection under the state Constitution. The group took its grievance to Superior Court, where Judge Stephen J. Fortunato ruled in January 2006 that the exemptions in the law were unconstitutional.

In March 2006, Attorney General Patrick C. Lynch appealed Fortunato’s decision to the state Supreme Court. The court issued its decision yesterday that overturned Fortunato’s ruling.

The Supreme Court said it was not unfair to exempt landlords who live in the same building as their rental properties, if those properties have only two or three units. Chief Justice Frank J. Williams and Justices Francis X. Flaherty, Paul A. Suttell and William Robinson joined in the decision. Justice Maureen McKenna Goldberg did not participate in the ruling. (Goldberg does not participate in lead paint matters because her husband, lobbyist and lawyer Robert Goldberg, has represented the paint industry.)

The decision, written by Chief Justice Williams, listed the evidence brought forth by the state — including testimony from local advocates and health officials — to suggest that landlords who lived in the properties they rent were more likely to mitigate potentially hazardous situations, and that children who had been poisoned were more likely to have lived in buildings with a landlord who does not live on the property.

The exemption does treat different landlords differently, Williams wrote. “Nevertheless, we conclude that such a classification passes constitutional muster because the General Assembly rationally could have concluded that the legislation was one step toward resolving the problem of lead poisoning in children.”

Attorney General Lynch’s office hailed the Supreme Court ruling in a news release, calling it “a victory for children’s health and safety, and another step toward the state’s ongoing efforts to eliminate lead poisoning of children.”

His words were echoed by Liz Colon, director of training and outreach at the Childhood Lead Action Project. “We are extremely happy to hear that [the law] is constitutional and that it has been upheld,” she said.

Lawyer Joseph S. Larisa Jr., who represented the landlords’ association, said he understood the justices’ decision, but said, “Just because it’s constitutional doesn’t mean it’s good policy.”

In October 2005, days before the law was set to go into effect, Fortunato agreed to hear a complaint against the state brought by the landlords’ association. A request by the plaintiffs for an injunction stopping the law from taking effect was denied, and the law took effect on Nov. 1, 2005.

On Jan. 6, 2006, Fortunato agreed with the plaintiffs’ assertion that the exemptions to the law arbitrarily created classes of landlords who were treated differently under the law. At the time, he said there was “no rational basis” for the exemptions of two-  and three-unit owner-occupied buildings. (The state had argued that landlords were more attentive to conditions in smaller buildings that they lived in.) In the Supreme Court opinion, Williams wrote that Fortunato’s job was to decide whether the General Assembly had a “rational basis to believe that its chosen solution would remedy a legitimate state problem.” Williams wrote that it was reasonable for the General Assembly to assume that children were less likely to be exposed to hazardous lead paint in the exempted housing situations.

The Supreme Court also criticized Fortunato’s decision not to enter a final judgment on the issue. In his decision, Fortunato declined to strike down the law, but instead wrote, “It is the hope of the court that the legislators will promptly revisit” the issue.

“We pause to note our concern with the trial justice’s refusal to enter final judgment,” Williams wrote. “This, coupled with the trial justice’s refusal to restrain the implementation of legislation that he found unconstitutional, left the parties in legal limbo.”

Fortunato’s ruling put the law in the peculiar position of having been deemed unconstitutional but still on the books.

Larisa, a former East Providence mayor, said that as far as he knew, the law has not been enforced against any of his more than 100 clients.

In 2005, Sydavong “Simon” Kue, coordinator for the Rhode Island Housing Resources Commission, estimated that there were about 160,000 rental units in the state, although he did not know how many landlords.

Yesterday’s ruling may end a period of lax or non-enforcement of the lead mitigation law.

“Once the Supreme Court rules on the constitutionality,” Kue said, “that’s the end of the legal challenge.”

In fact, the only way Larisa sees a favorable outcome for his clients is if the attorney general is ultimately successful in another ongoing lead paint case — the suit against companies that made and sold lead paint in Rhode Island.

If the state Supreme Court upholds that victory, which found the companies guilty of creating a public nuisance when they manufactured and sold paint with lead in Rhode Island, the companies may have to comply with a $2.3-billion abatement plan, paying for the cleanup themselves.

“If that happens, and if it’s upheld,” Larisa said, “there will be a strong push in the General Assembly to have the paint removed.” It’s a case that doesn’t distinguish between owner-occupied or absent landlord, he said: “If there’s lead in the house, you have to clean it up.”

bjeffers@projo.com