Occupational licensing regulation
Occupational Licensing Regulation: Overview
What is Occupational Licensing?
Occupational licensing refers to the legal requirement to obtain a license from a government authority in order to practice certain professions. It applies to a wide range of jobs, from doctors and lawyers to barbers, electricians, and even florists in some jurisdictions.
Purpose of Licensing
Protect public health and safety
Ensure minimum standards of competence
Prevent fraud and malpractice
Maintain ethical and professional conduct
Criticisms
Creates barriers to entry
Often protects existing professionals from competition
Can be anti-competitive or economically exclusionary
May lack proportionality (too strict for low-risk professions)
Constitutional Concerns
Courts have evaluated occupational licensing laws under:
Due Process Clause (substantive economic liberty)
Equal Protection Clause (irrational classifications)
First Amendment (if license restricts speech)
Commerce Clause (for out-of-state applicants)
Antitrust law (when boards act anti-competitively)
⚖️ Key Case Law on Occupational Licensing
Case 1: Dent v. West Virginia, 129 U.S. 114 (1889)
Facts:
Dent, a physician, was convicted for practicing medicine without a license in West Virginia, though he had practiced in other states.
Issue:
Was it constitutional to require a license for medical practice, even for someone already experienced?
Holding:
The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the licensing requirement, stating it was a legitimate exercise of state police power to protect public health.
Significance:
First major case to validate occupational licensing.
Confirmed that a state can set minimum qualifications.
Laid the foundation for modern licensing frameworks.
Case 2: Goldfarb v. Virginia State Bar, 421 U.S. 773 (1975)
Facts:
A state bar association enforced a minimum fee schedule for legal services, affecting how lawyers priced their work.
Issue:
Did the licensing body's actions violate federal antitrust laws?
Holding:
Yes. The Supreme Court held that the state bar’s fee schedule violated the Sherman Antitrust Act and was not immune simply because it was a professional regulation.
Significance:
Shows that licensing bodies are subject to antitrust law unless they meet specific exemptions.
Not all professional rules are immune from competition scrutiny.
Case 3: North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v. FTC, 574 U.S. 494 (2015)
Facts:
The state dental board (mostly composed of dentists) sent cease-and-desist letters to non-dentist teeth-whitening businesses.
Issue:
Did the board’s action violate federal antitrust laws, and was it protected under state-action immunity?
Holding:
The Supreme Court held that because the board was dominated by market participants and not actively supervised by the state, it could be held liable under antitrust laws.
Significance:
Major precedent: licensing boards made up of professionals can be sued for anti-competitive conduct.
States must actively supervise such boards for them to enjoy immunity.
Case 4: Craigmiles v. Giles, 312 F.3d 220 (6th Cir. 2002)
Facts:
Tennessee required a license to sell caskets, and only licensed funeral directors could do so.
Issue:
Was this regulation rationally related to any legitimate government interest?
Holding:
The 6th Circuit struck it down, finding the regulation served no real public interest and was designed to protect licensed funeral directors from competition.
Significance:
Important example of courts striking down economic protectionism.
Licensing laws must be rationally related to public welfare, not just economic favoritism.
Case 5: St. Joseph Abbey v. Castille, 712 F.3d 215 (5th Cir. 2013)
Facts:
A Louisiana law prohibited monks from selling handcrafted caskets unless they were licensed funeral directors.
Issue:
Did this licensing requirement violate the Due Process Clause?
Holding:
The court ruled in favor of the monks, finding the licensing law had no legitimate public health or safety purpose and was pure economic protectionism.
Significance:
Strong precedent against using licensing to block market access for non-threatening activities.
Confirmed that courts can review occupational licensing under rational basis scrutiny and strike it down.
Case 6: Lawson v. Grubhub, 13 F.4th 908 (9th Cir. 2021)
Facts:
A delivery driver sued Grubhub over employment classification and mentioned issues around business licensing as a driver.
Issue:
Was Grubhub responsible for licensing obligations of gig workers?
Holding:
Although not directly about occupational licensing rules, the court's discussion reflects how licensing laws intersect with the gig economy and independent contractor classification.
Significance:
Highlights the complexity of new job types and how licensing laws struggle to keep up.
Raises questions about who is responsible for compliance in gig work settings.
Case 7: Board of Optometry v. Cozart, 527 S.W.3d 910 (Ark. 2017)
Facts:
The board attempted to prevent a licensed optometrist from opening a practice with ophthalmologists, citing regulations that limited co-practice.
Issue:
Was the board exceeding its authority in enforcing scope-of-practice restrictions?
Holding:
The Arkansas Supreme Court found that the board’s actions were overly restrictive and anti-competitive.
Significance:
Reinforces limits on scope-of-practice restrictions.
Boards cannot enforce rules that go beyond legislative authority.
🧾 Summary Table
| Case | Court | Issue | Ruling | Key Principle |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dent v. West Virginia (1889) | U.S. Supreme Court | General licensing | Licensing upheld | Police power to regulate professions |
| Goldfarb v. Virginia Bar (1975) | U.S. Supreme Court | Fee regulation | Violated antitrust | Licensing bodies subject to competition law |
| NC Dental Board v. FTC (2015) | U.S. Supreme Court | Teeth whitening | Board liable | No antitrust immunity without supervision |
| Craigmiles v. Giles (2002) | 6th Circuit | Casket sales | Licensing struck down | No public interest, only protectionism |
| St. Joseph Abbey v. Castille (2013) | 5th Circuit | Monks selling caskets | Licensing invalid | Economic liberty > protectionism |
| Lawson v. Grubhub (2021) | 9th Circuit | Gig economy licensing | Employer not liable | Licensing law adaptation in gig economy |
| Cozart (2017) | Arkansas Supreme Court | Practice restrictions | Board overreach | Scope-of-practice limits |
⚖️ Legal Standards Applied
Rational Basis Review (most common): Law must be rationally related to a legitimate government interest.
Heightened scrutiny (if speech or suspect classifications involved).
Antitrust analysis (if board actions limit market competition without supervision).
✅ Conclusion
Occupational licensing is a powerful tool for protecting public welfare, but it must be:
Proportionate to the risk involved
Non-discriminatory and not economically protectionist
Supervised when controlled by market participants
Flexible enough to adapt to new industries and business models
Courts generally defer to legislatures in professional regulation, but they will strike down laws that violate constitutional rights or are irrationally anti-competitive.
RELATED Blog
0 comments