Facts
The appellant had worked as a self-employed driving instructor since 2002. By decision of 7 September 2017, the Road Traffic Office of the Canton of St. Gallen revoked his driving instructor licence for an indefinite period. The Administrative Appeals Commission upheld the appeal lodged against this by decision of 31 May 2018 and remitted the matter to the Road Traffic Office for further investigation; a traffic-psychological examination was deemed indispensable, and it had to be examined whether the licence should be revoked as a precautionary measure.
On that basis, the Road Traffic Office revoked the driving instructor licence as a precautionary measure on 2 July 2018. The appellant lodged an appeal against the precautionary revocation on 11 July 2018 and applied for legal aid and suspensive effect. The President of the Administrative Appeals Commission rejected these applications by decision of 29 October 2018.
The appeal lodged against this with the Administrative Court of the Canton of St. Gallen was rejected by the Division President by decision of 15 November 2018 with regard to legal aid; he considered that the appeal had no prospect of success. The Federal Supreme Court set aside this decision by judgment 2C_1130/2018 of 1 February 2019 and remitted the matter for the granting of legal aid.
By decision of 9 April 2019, the Division President partially upheld the appeal, set aside operative paragraph 1 of the interlocutory decision of 29 October 2018, and granted legal aid as well as representation by a lawyer for the appeal proceedings. For the remainder, he dismissed the appeal. The lower court in particular affirmed the withdrawal of suspensive effect, since the appellant's driving record was seriously tarnished (multiple driving licence revocations, over nine years without a driving licence, numerous traffic offences including multiple instances of driving while intoxicated) and the public interest outweighed the private, probably purely financial, interest.
By submission of 8 May 2019, the appellant applied to the Federal Supreme Court and requested the annulment of the lower court's decision with regard to the question of suspensive effect, the remittal to the authority, and an order to grant suspensive effect as well as the reissue of the driving instructor licence.
Considerations
Pursuant to Art. 42 para. 1 and 2 FSCA, submissions must contain requests and reasons; the statement of appeal must set out in concise form to what extent the contested act violates the law. A substantive reasoning is required, that is, at least a rudimentary engagement with the decisive considerations of the lower court. Since the contested decision is based on cantonal law, which does not count as Swiss law within the meaning of Art. 95 FSCA, the violation of cantonal law can only be complained of to a limited extent, namely the violation of constitutional rights. The complaint of violation of constitutional rights, such as economic freedom (Art. 27 Cst.), is subject to a qualified duty to complain (Art. 106 para. 2 FSCA).
The submission of 8 May 2019 does not meet these requirements. The blanket statements on cases of serious, imminent and otherwise unavertable danger, on the principle of proportionality (Art. 36 Cst.) and on the balancing against…