Establish governmentbacked barriers of entry into professions and fields based on the allegation that the general safety and welfare of the community is served and protected by them. The reality is that connected Interest Groups favor occupational licensing for its anticompetitive effects. The fees and restrictions instituted by occupational licensure prevent entrepreneurial innovators who often come from modest backgrounds and represent vulnerable groups from efficiently providing consumers with better goods and services. The onus of these laws falls disproportionately on minority communities who would benefit from the elimination of burdensome regulations and the expense of Economic Freedom and mobility. The Johnson Center for political economy recently did a study that was published in 2018 called the cause of occupational cost of occupational licensing in alabama. We have dan sutter with us today who is the executive director of the Johnson Center for political economy. Concludes that we have got a problem with occupational licensure in alabama. I want to read from it just briefly. Alabama licenses 120 occupations 432,000 individuals representing 21 of the states labor force. We estimate the total initial cost of occupational licensure, excluding the educational cost, to be 122 million, and annual license renewal costs for workers and consumers who often pay for these costs in increased prices 45 million total. This pales in comparison to the total initial education costs, which we estimate to be 65 billion and the estimated 243 million annual continuing education costs for license workers in alabama. What are some of these professions that are licensed in alabama . You could be a dietitian, you have to go through all these fees, a midwife, to be in auctioneer, you have to be licensed in our state. Im excited to have Justin Pearson here today to talk about occupational licensure. The title of his talk is wrapped in red tape, stifling the how occupational licensing law stifles the american dream. He is the Florida Office managing attorney at the institute for justice. He has devoted his career to defending the Constitutional Rights of Small Business owners and he has victoriously argued on their behalf at trial in Appellate Courts across the nation. These include winning several types of constitutional challenges that had never previously prevailed anywhere. As a result, justin was honored by the daily Business Review in 2017 for being named one of south floridas most effective lawyers. In addition to litigation, performs a substantial amount of justin legislating work including helping allies and their staff to draft reform bills that have become law. He is frequently invited by state house and Senate Committee chairs to testify on these topics and has done so over a dozen times, with occupational license reform being the most frequent topic. He received his law degree with honors from the university of miami and a bachelors degree from North Carolina state university. He is on the Steering Committee for the federal Society Miami chapter and is on the James MadisonInstitute Board of directors and a member of the American Enterprise institutes leadership network. Justin was kind last night to have dinner with a group of law students and was very helpful in helping them think through their career plans, their studies, their curricula, and he is also generous to be giving his time here to us today so please join us in welcoming Justin Pearson. [applause] mr. Pearson thank you for that generous introduction. Thank you all for having me. Its an honor to be here. I have one of the greatest jobs in the world. I wake up every day and i sue the government. Its a lot of fun. I highly recommend it. Institute for justice, i never sue for money and i never charge my clients anything. My salary and costs are paid for by over 8000 donors. I go across the nation representing all Business Owners pro bono, free of charge. This judges to throw out is something i love doing. Its tied into the whole reason i went to law school in the first place. My mom is a Small Business owner in florida and i went to law school because i wanted to represent Small Business owners like my mom. My dream was to have my own law firm. My first client was my mom. The problem was my clients could not afford to pay me to file be to file big constitutional challenges, so i started doing more and more pro bono work. I now get paid a salary to do the type of thing i used to do for fun as pro bono work. Which is a great deal if you can get it. I love Small Business owners. Am fortunate that i have been able to devote my career to helping Small Business owners like my mom. There is no better place to do that than the institute for justice. Ij is the nations largest libertarian Public Interest law firm. What that means is that we are philosophically libertarian. We represent clients from all different types of backgrounds and worldviews, and we sue republicans just about as much as democrats. Violating the constitution is a bipartisan endeavor. We are in favor of constitutional restraints on government. We are the largest firm of this type in the nation. We are up to over 130 employees in our seven offices. Employees in our seven offices. One reason we have become so large is that we have been tremendously successful over the years. In january we will be arguing our eighth United States supreme cour won six of them. Overall, we went over 70 of our cases. We seek out cases that people then weot be won, and find ways to win them. Focuses on four key areas. Property rights, educational choice, free speech, and economic liberty. Im i say economic liberty, referring to the natural right to earn an honest living without arbitrary government interference. You should be free to pursue supporting yourself in whatever way you think is best for you. If the government wants to interfere with that, they have to have a good reason. It cannot just be that they like your competitor more than they like you. In the era of economic liberty, there is no topic that has a larger impact than the topic im here to focus on today, which is occupational licensing. If you add up all the people impacted by minimumwage laws and any other issue you can , itsof and combine them less than the number of people who are affected by current occupational licensing laws. In the 1950s, only one in 20 americans were hard to get an occupational license or a government permission slip to work. That number is now up to one in four. It was supposed to be a tool of legislaturesthat enacted when there was no other way to achieve the desired goal. Now it is there tool of first resort. People tend to think about doctors and loggers, but when your state has hundreds of occupational licenses, and every state does, its typically not for a doctor or lawyer, its for a dance instructor or auctioneer. These are all real licenses that exist. Right now we see an outbreak of legislatures wanting to license music therapy. Once someone volunteers her time to play music it to kids in the hospital. Its ridiculous. It has led to such abuse and has gotten so out of control that were seeing these really interesting coalitions come together to push back. I dont know how many things the trump and Obama Administrations agree on. I dont think it is a very long list. Onnow for things they agree and they all have to do with occupational licensing. I put together a list of what might possibly be an exhaustive list of everything that President Trump and president obama agree with, and they all have to do with occupational licensing. If you look at think tanks from the right, left, and center, we all agree that these are undisputed facts. The first fact is that occupational licensing kills 2. 80 5 million american jobs every year. 21,000 jobs killed every year because of licensing laws. You dont need corporate welfare, you dont need all these handouts to create jobs. Just through modest reform of licensing laws, you could create thousands of jobs overnight. Weve had tremendous success convincing states to repeal licenses for africanamerican hair breeders. Braiders. Not hair 3000 jobs were created in mississippi from repealing one license. Not every license will create 3000 job if you repeal it, but you can create thousands of jobs and this is undisputed. Fact number two that is undisputed, occupational licensing laws because American Consumers to be overcharged by 203 billion every year. Peopleaws tend to hurt who can least afford it. For example, if you are a wealthy individual and you have to pay a couple of extra bucks , but if you are from a disadvantaged background and everything you buy cost extra, you may have might have to make some tough choices that you otherwise would not have to make. Occupational licensing laws increase recidivism, and of course this makes sense, but it shocked my friends on the left. I remember when some scholars in were in california newspapers talking about how californias occupational licensing laws were increasing recidivism, it blew my friends minds. How can it be that progressive policies are increasing recidivism . But of course, when you make more thinks a crime, you end up with more criminals. You are taking away someones ability to earn a nice living, they are more likely to turn to some other way to support themselves. Fact number four, and this is sure they kicker, lead to recidivism, but certainly they must protect health and safety, right . No, they dont. This was discussed in the Obama Administration and other places. You look at all the studies and all the research that was done, they agree that for the overwhelming majority of licenses, there is no positive impact on health, safety, or welfare. So it is all harm and no benefit. Its all bad and no good. Its a nationwide problem. Have these absurd licenses that should not exist in every state. Alabama, youre basically in the middle of the pack. Of the burden created by licensing laws and how many licenses you have, you are the 25th best or 26 worst, so right there in the middle of the pack. You have a license for shampoo , but when someone is trying to start up and get a job for and start their way up the economic ladder, you dont want to impose extra fees on them. You have the auctioneering license. Its not a license that should exist. In states that dont have that license, there are no problems being caused by the lack of an auctioneers license. Its one of the most difficult licenses to get. It is more difficult to get a license to be an auctioneer than to become an emergency medical technician. Theits not that regulations for emts are not strict enough, they are. Its that the license has no correlation at all with health and safety. It is who has the most powerful special Interest Group and lobby. Stories hear about the and you see all the harm being done, its easy to laugh at these silly laws that exist, like license for timekeepers and people who want to play music for kids in hospitals. Need to remember that when youre talking about these laws being enforced, youre talking about a situation where if someone violates that line of times, Police Officers are going to arrest them. That is precisely what happens with these licensing laws. I have spoken to people who have been arrested and prosecuted for the crime of braiding hair. Teams,ears ago, swat full swat teams rated barbershops on the suspicion of unlicensed barbering. This is what happens when you have these laws. Unfortunately, sometimes things go far astray. I just want to give you unexampled. As i mentioned before, people have been arrested for the crime of braiding hair. An individual in texas is a hair braid her and she was literally arrested for braiding hair about a license. Officers with guns and badges showed up and put her in handcuffs and took her to jail and booked her for the crime of braiding hair. She was able to fight back and eventually get the law changed. Texas law prevented her from teaching anyone how to grade hair. Braid hair if they wanted to go and learn couldnt because it was a crime for her to teach them. At that point, thats when i. J. Got involved and filed a law sought and eventually i would like to do is show you her video quickly. People,hurting real causing real people to go to jail. For braiding hair. Shes is a professional african hair brader. Of opened the institute ancestral braiding and dallas erica baidyu the homeless. In 1997, she was arrested because braiding was a crime unless you had a special license requiring years of schooling having nothing to do with braiding. She thought the licensing law. Although she won the right to braid, texas did not back down completely. A license for braiding into the existing farber statute. Statute. Barber coursecan only teach the at an existing Barber School. Otherwise, she has to build her own Barber School and take expensive and pointless classes. The bottom line is texas has no problem with her teaching. Just with her working for herself. She mustvernment says turn it into a Barber College and install things that have braiding likewith wash stations she will never use. She also needs things like shorthaired manikins. And she has to go back to school for 750 hours. Instructors should not he schools. Build barber that is why she is fighting for her rights once again. She is teaming up with the lawsuite to file a against texas. We want to change the law so itryone else can experience fairly. A victory for her will help barbers in texas and beyond. It is especially important for black women. This is the civil rights movement. Thankfully, we won the case. She is doing well. Teaching people how to braid hair. Beboggles my mind she had to arrested and go to jail first. Obviously, there is a push for reform. Ways the trump and Obama Administration agree. There are also groups pushing for reform. It is more difficult than you would think. We have had some success. Getting rid of an occupational license. Appealed repealed 23 licenses. 200300, it iss just a drop in the bucket. I am going to talk about the challenges we face trying to repeal these licenses that should not exist at all but second, i am going to talk about the challenges we face when we file lawsuits. First, in terms of trying to get reform passed, it is really difficult. The reason it is so difficult is because of a phenomena identified by public choice economists. Has anyone here heard of public choice economics . I see some people raising their hands. I am talking to a knowledgeable crowd, which is terrific. Public choice economics is often described as Political Science without the romance. ,nstead of Political Science which focuses on rhetoric and philosophy and why politicians say they are doing something, public choice economics focuses on why they actually do what they do. In these studies, economists come across a problem they call the problem of concentrated benefits and dispersed costs. When you have a program or horrible tois society as a whole, the net effect is a negative effect, if that cost is spread out across all society but the smaller benefit is concentrated in the hands of a few people, it becomes almost impossible to repeal these laws. I see this play out firsthand. A good bill that gets passed by a wellmeaning legislator who realizes these laws need to be repealed. It will go through the committee process. What will happen is legislators who campaigned on deregulation and helping out Small Business owners will try to water down the bill. The way they do this is almost always the same. Heard bybeing committee, a proderegulation legislator will say, i need you to amend this bill. Fan of deregulation. I am a fan of small is this owners. But there are a lot of people from this particular occupation in my district. I need you to amend this bill and take out the reform for that one license. If you do that, i will happily support this good bill. They do it. A legislator who ran in day regulation says the same thing. On deregulation says the same thing. Saying, you know i love deregulation but we need to get rid of this. By the time it makes it out of committee, there is nothing left. It is incredibly frustrating. Fact,so frustrating, and it makes you start to wonder whether you even have a right to economic liberty. Legislatures certainly dont act like you do. Right, or at least you are supposed to. What i would like to do is talk about vindicating that right. Challenging these in court. Often times, these challenges are brought under state constitutional provisions. Constitutions were already in existence when the constitution was ratified. Withs drafted and ratified the understanding these state constitutions already exist. It was state constitutions that were supposed to protect economic liberty. The declaration of rights tends to be fantastic. Language about protecting natural rights. Only legitimate purpose protectnment is to life, liberty, and property. You have all these wonderful provisions that were supposed to protect economic liberty. The framers of the constitution understood, we are already protecting economic liberty. During reconstruction, it turned out the protections were not doing their job. The state judges were not doing what they were supposed to be doing ruling in favor of people whose bites rights were being violated. Types of abuses you tended to see. Alliesslaves and white would have the right to bear arms taken away. The right to vote taken away. The right to be selfsufficient taken away. You would hear Horror Stories of men having freed to work for their former slaves laws. E of occupational thosethe 14th amendment, were supposed to be the things protected. Youre right to earn a living. And then what happened . We have independent judges, people who should be willing to stand up for what is right, even when his unpopular recognizing the most important time is when it is unpopular. Certainly, that would protect aspiring entrepreneurs. It makes me think of what the founders said when they were drafting the constitution. Thomas jefferson warned the natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground. They were afraid of the fact government always likes to grow. They knew we needed government for some specific things. But it is always going to want to expand its powers. The framers did everything they could. Brainstormed ways to keep government from growing beyond the purposes for which it was created. Day, one way the they wanted to do that was through an independent judiciary. Hopefully some of you have read federal 78. It talks about how constitutions of thent the direct will people. Any time the representatives conflicts, the painful duty of the judge is to rule that law unconstitutional. If you have not read this, i recommend you do. Judges get toan exercise will. Their job is to serve as a bulwark to keep government within its lane. Quote was something said by James Madison when he was presenting the draft of the bill of rights to congress. Besaid the judiciary would become ans to impenetrable bulwark. I love that. You have this government that constantly wants to grow. Do more than one what he told it it is allowed to do. Bulwarkable work a that will keep the legislative, executive, and judicial expanding. The problem is not judges are impenetrable bulwarks. They are human beings. They tend to be smart, hardworking, wonderful. But they are people. Sometimes they make mistakes. Sometimes the government slips one by the goalie and government grows. That is really the story of economic liberty under the 14th amendment. Shortly after the 14th amendment was ratified, the privileges or immunities clause was eviscerated. Scholars from across the political spectrum agree that case was wrongly decided. Nonetheless, here we are. It remains good president. It does not provide a lot of help. Certainly not the type it was supposed to. We still have things like due process of law. Equal protection. In the new deal, there was a fdr and then courts. At the end of the day, 1930s, the Supreme Court decided there were some rights in the constitution, some parts the Supreme Court no longer cared about. There were some parts it did like free speech. Property rights and economic liberty, it did not care about. The parts that it cared about would receive meaningful review. The parts the court no longer cared about would receive the rational basis test. Faxed does not, matter. The truth doesnt matter. It is designed to make sure the government almost always wins. For thispresident says judge made doctrine, it is the job of government lawyers and judges to try to make up sympathetic all rationales. To try to see how creative they could the. Alternative rationales. Of the person challenging the law to negate every single one of these. It is a test to make sure the government almost always wins. Was so bad, it has become so watered down, people told the founders not to waste time bringing rational basis challenges. No one had won one since the new deal. Newne had won one since the deal. Dont waste your donors money. Founders realized there was a way they could win. The Supreme Court had not said we no longer have a right to economic liberty or property rights. They said, it is governed by a different test. As long as there is a test for those rights, surely there is a law that must fail that test. Around and brought challenges on behalf of aspiring entrepreneurs under the russian a basis case test. It was hard. When they walked into court, the government lawyer would say, rational basis test. No real search for the truth. Dust off the old rubberstamp. The government was so out of control, some of these regulations and enforcements were so ridiculous, every now and then ij would win. Becomete would grow and easier to bring the next challenge. Even today, when i walk into court on behalf of a Small Business owner, they will say judge, rational the government. Iscourse the government supposed to win. And of course, im always honest with the judge. Now we have a fight for a couple dozen cases where entrepreneurs and aspiring entrepreneurs have rational basis challenges. Clearly there is some level of real judging involved. Once you get to that point, you have a good shot because government abuse is so ridiculously out of control. What i would like to leave you with before we turn to q as talk about the three types of cases i bring. I bring First Amendment challenges, occupational licenses, state constitutional challenges, occupational licenses, and when i dont have anything else to rely on, i bring federal rational basis challenges, occupational licenses. The first set of challenges the ring the reason i bring in First Amendment challenges is because the First Amendment is the part of the constitution that the Supreme Court still cares about. It gets strict scrutiny. That is why we do it. That is not the only way we win challenges under the constitution. The Supreme Court, when they are we went under the government Commerce Clause. The government Commerce Clause is something the Supreme Court still cares about. We go through provisions that will allow us to bring a federal constitutional challenge without having to litigate the basis test. , gettingon three cases licensing laws for tour guides struck down. Those were in washington, d. C. , carlson, south carolina, and savannah, georgia. Savannah was my favorite because our client there gave ghost tours. The government said that he should take a test and jump through all sorts of hoops to tell ghost stories. That makes no sense. I would like to see what test they would give. Our client is telling ghost stories today. Thankfully, as he should be allowed to do. God bless him. I would like to talk to you about a First Amendment case pending at the 11th circuit, and that is a case from the Florida Panhandle, representing our. Lient, Heather Castillo the case was brought in pensacola to the 11th circuit. Heather did not grow up in florida. She has lived a bunch of places, and her husband is in the air force, so she travels around a lot. What heather does, to make extra money, is she does diet coaching. She does not give complicated advice. A sickly anyone who works out, you tend to have someone better who is there keeping you on schedule. She tells people to keep a food journal. She reminds them to eat their vegetables, things like that. Before living in florida, she lived in california. Let me tell you something, anytime you have a regulation that does not exist in california, youre doing something wrong. That is a stead a sad state of affairs in my home state of california. In california, no problems at all. In the Florida Panhandle, because her husband was relocated to a Different Military base, she opens up your business not realizing there would be problems. In response, the state of florida, in its infinite wisdom, conducts an undercover sting operation to confirm that she is reminding people to eat their vegetables. Which, oddly, she says on her website. But they believed they had to have this multiday, multiday, multi agent undercover sting operation. At the conclusion of their investigation, that did not involve anything she was actually contesting, they determined she was telling people to eat their vegetables, which violated floridas licensing for nutritionists. So heather, thankfully, was able to find ijs website and contact us, and we brought a lawsuit. It is a First Amendment case. It is a case where she thankfully, because her work involves speech, she gets meaningful judicial review. It is also a case where it is important that we weigh in because she is in a particularly tough situation. By the time she were to jump through the hoopla government requires, she is going to move again. So she has to go back to square one every time she moves. Assuming she moves to a different state that has the same license, she cannot even pass the requirements in time before it is time to move again. So we bring a case to the Northern District of florida, and we only lost because there is a controlling precedent at the 11th circuit that we believe is no longer good precedent, but that they Northern District judge pointed out that she could no longer be the judge to overturn it. I would like to do quickly what i would like to do quickly is show you heathers video. As we speak, there are cases going on where we are asserting First Amendment challenges to occupational licensing laws not that far from here. The Florida Panhandle is not that far from montgomery. Heather the day i got cited, i was blindsided. I could not believe that this was my life. I could not believe this was happening to me. To have the carpet pulled from under my feet is just devastating. Castillo, andther i guide people to put in healthier foods, and in doing that, it can take away unhealthy foods. We are a military family. Two years ago we had to move from monterey beach, california. Alifornia did not require license for Holistic Health coaching. It never occurred to me that i would be prohibited in my career. The only thing that changed is that i moved from state to state. One day i was sitting on my couch, got a knock on my door, and an investigator said i am serving you with a cease and desist and a 754 fine. A registered dietitian decided to report me. The cease and desist meant that i could no longer health coach in the state of florida. That meant a piece of my income and my career and my passion had been suddenly squelched. The penalty is if i do not cease and desist, first degree misdemeanor. A year in prison and a 1000 fine for each offense. To be licensed in florida, i would need a bachelors degree in health. On top of the bachelors and masters degree i already have, a 900 our internship, and to pass a boardcertified exam. I cannot pursue getting licensed in florida because the requirements are just too lengthy and too financially burdensome. We are a military family. We may only live in florida another two years. What i do is no different than a blogger or book author who is able to publish freely their words and advice about nutrition. I can write a book, publish it, sell it in florida with the same advice i make to an individual. But i cannot talk to them. A lot of my coaching happens over the phone, or skype or google hang out. The First Amendment allows us to speak freely about nutrition, whether paid or unpaid. With the institute for justice, i am suing the state of florida in federal court for my First Amendment right to discuss health and nutrition with other individuals. Heathers story even though we lost, we will probably win at the 11th circuit. I get calls all the time from military spouses where they move from one state to another state, where where they had a license in the old state they do not in the new state. It does not protect health and safety by having people jump through these hoops. It is part of the constitution that receives meaningful judicial review and she has a good chance of winning. There are other challenges we bring. There is an official licensing challenge that we bring under state constitutions. These vary from state to state. I would recommend that you read your declaration of rights. There are two ways that we are able to use those state declaration of rights to strike down these licenses. The first is that sometimes the state constitution will have provisions that do not exist for the federal constitution. I have had tremendous success of bringing antimonopoly clause challenges. You also have provisions for bidding special laws. You have to look at the respective constitution in your respective state, but pretty much every state has something that will at least allow us to make an additional argument we would not be able to make in federal court. Even if the state does not have anything different than the federal const touche and, it is important to remember that state Supreme Courts than the federal constitution, it is important to remember that the state Supreme Court we interpret our constitutional language differently, that our Supreme Court disagrees with the u. S. Supreme court. They can never go below the federal floor, but they can go above it. That happens and that is helpful. It does not mean we are always going to win. Here in alabama, we lost a case to the alabama Supreme Court where we challenged a license. We were arguing that the precedent was different than the federal precedent. Unfortunately, the alabama Supreme Court disagreed and we lost that one. But overall we tend to win these cases more often than we lose. Them morend to win often than the federal basis tests. Maybe someday we will win in alabama as well. Those are the first two types of challenges that we bring. Then of course, sometimes there is no reason to think that a state constitution will provide any more protection than the federal constitution. That times, it is clear there is not going to be any way that we can get the case to the First Amendment. So we are left with nothing but the federal rational basis test. Winning a federal rational basis test is the most difficult to do in constitutional law. As i pointed out, for about half a century, it never happened. You never won one of those challenges and people thought it could never be known. Now we have been winning them, but it is still extremely difficult. In order to illustrate both the progress we have made and how difficult it remains to win rational basis cases, i would love to talk about i would like to talk about three cases involving the same type of law. Three different states, the same law. This was a law that involved the sale of caskets. It said when you die, you dont have to be buried if you dont want to be. Are buried, you do not have to be buried in a casket if you do not want to be. If you want to be buried in a casket made out of wood, you can it from anyone you want as long as the person is from out of state. But if you buy it from someone in your state, they have to be a funeral director. A casket is just a wooden box. The whole reason the laws existed is because field directors Funeral Directors made a tremendous amount of money selling as middlemen, jacking up prices on caskets to grieving families. The first case was in tennessee, challenging the law i just described. About 20 years ago. It was a federal case, federal rational basis case. We negated every possible conceivable rationale that the government came up with, which is the job of the government to come up with stuff even if it was totally unrelated to the law. The case boiled down to this is how bad it was. The case boiled down to whether protections itself from no other state was a rational basis test. That case was about whether you could actually win a rational basis challenge. And we did. We won. The District Court said the protectionism is not a legitimate test. Everyone again, same logic. We negated every rationale, and protectionism is not a legitimate government interest. That was the First Federal economic liberty rational basis win. Another case in oklahoma, same law, same situation, negate every possible rationale. The case boils down to whether protectionism itself was a legitimate government interest under the u. S. Constitution, and we lose in u. S. District court. So we appealed to the 10th circuit and we lose again. Outrageous, that i want to pull up the quote. I want to make sure i get it absolutely right. Here is what a federal Appellate Court said in a case upholding a law against our challenge. While baseball may be the National Pastime of the citizenry, dishing out special economic benefits to certain interstate industries may favorite remains the pastime of state and local governments. They are corrupt, they are slimy, but it doesnt matter. There is no judging to be done here, go away. There is a circuit split, right . The Supreme Court does not take the case. So we get angry. We pull out all the stops. When we file these cases, we get a ton of media attention. Does anyone know who we represented in our louisiana casket case . Monks, thats right. First rule of Public Interest law. Whenever possible, represent monks. That is who we represented in louisiana. Represented st. Joseph abbey, a monastery in louisiana. These monks lived by a philosophy where they do not want to rely on charity. They want to rely on working with their hands. That is how they live their lives. In order to make the money they need to buy food and insurance and robes and Everything Else that monks need, they take wood from their property and they bring it to their little woodshop that they have at the monastery and they build these simple, noble caskets that they sell to make the money that they need. The state of louisiana, particularly the Funeral Directors, because the monks were violating the law that said only Funeral Directors can sell caskets. To take thereed monks case and file a challenge. We filed it in federal court in louisiana. Before i go further, let me play you the video, the last video i play today. I love the videos. One of the cool things about ij is that we have a great team of people who are not just lawyers, but they are Video Production people and i think they do a fantastic job. Let me play the video about some monks, that we filmed right before the lawsuit. We feel very strongly, and we have a right to an honest living through the building and sale of our abbey caskets. Louisiana does not respect that right, so the monks have taken the state to federal court. As monks have done for centuries, these monks put food on their table through the labor of their own hands. The monks of st. Joseph abbey have been making caskets for over 100 years. People who ask for them want to share in that noble simplicity that our coffins express. My husband really wanted to have a simple burial. He lived life simply and he wanted to have just a simple wooden coffin. So the monks were able to provide that service for us. But it is a crime in louisiana to sell a casket unless you are a state licensed funeral director, and the government has launched proceedings to punish them. For the sin of selling a casket, which is really just a box, the monks face crippling fines and even jail. And they also lost an important way of supporting themselves. We are not a wealthy monastery, and we need an income that Joseph Woodworks could generate for the health care and the education of our own monks. The state is going after the monks because licensed Funeral Directors want the casket markets for themselves. There is an unholy alliance in louisiana between the government and the funeral industry lobby. There was a major federal lawsuit to protect their right and the right of every american to earn an honest living, free from economic protectionism and further outrageous government interference. Bureaucrats and special interests are so out of control in this country, not even monks are safe. The brothers at st. Joseph abbeyly at st. Joseph are ready to go to the Supreme Court if that is what it takes to restore economic liberty everywhere. Justin the law was ridiculous. That they had to install an and almingg room an emb room, and that some of the monks had to get degrees. Thankfully, we won. We negated every conceivable rationale for the law. The case law was whether protectionism was itself a legitimate interest. The District Court agreed with us that it is not. They agreed with the sixth circuit as opposed to the 10th circuit. So it goes to the fifth circuit and we won again. Filed ae of louisiana petition but it was denied. As far as the licensing requirements for selling caskets are concerned, some circuits go the right way, some go the wrong way. Those are the only cases about selling caskets there there have been other cases talking about whether protectionism is a legitimate government interest. Some of those involve pest control, shampoo errors shampooers, and often the courts not aat protectionism is legitimate government interest. Sometimes the circuits split. Some point, hopefully that will if the Supreme Courts attention. Hopefully when that happens, the Supreme Court will rule the right way, but i cannot guarantee it. The Supreme Court has shown they are not really interested in this issue. We have 80 years of bad precedent, so we hope the Supreme Court, if it takes one of these cases, that they will do the right thing. In the meantime, i am fortunate that i can spend my time going around the country, making the world a freer place for my mom and other Small Businesses out there. Thank you very much. [applause] we have a little bit of time for questions. Do we have any questions . Have you been able to limit,te with states to or are you just abolishing the withation, or coming up something practical that does require the onerous justin that is a great question. There are all sorts of different regulatory approaches that can be taken other than banning people from working. Banning people from working should be the last resort. Perhaps you are worried about flybynight operators where you want them to register or have an insurance requirement. There are all sorts of things that can be done short of licensing. Our approach, when we are talking to legislators, is not thery to water down licenses, but we were open to and even suggest is replacing the licenses with something that does not ban work. Suppose fails, i reducing the licenses is better than no reform at all, but we are trying to get legislators out of the mindset that they should be banning people from working and helping them to realize that there are other tools available in their regulatory cool kit their regulatory toolkit. It scares some people. There are things that you can do as a legislator that does not ban people from working. We push them in that direction. For many years i looked at this issue. Category justin not every municipality has that approach, but a shocking number do, are basically a municipal code will say anything that is not expressly allowed is forbidden. I think that is extremely troubling for obvious reasons. That goes far beyond licensing. That involves food truck laws and all sorts of things that go beyond the scope of licensing. What i will tell you, though, is that it does exist. That approach does still exist. But you do not need a state licensed to get around that. There are also other ways to get around that. It is a much broader issue than licensing. Sadly, that is something we continue to see in municipal codes. Obviously i do not think those approaches should be taken. I know we have got quite a few regulatory boards in alabama that are concerned about antitrust problems. The california dental examiners obviously there is some overlap. Justin thank you for bringing that up. I was talking in my speech about constitutional challenges, particularly challenges to specific licenses. There are other ways to challenge these provisions in court. If you are going after the makeup of the board as opposed to the license itself that is what happened in that helpful antitrust case. Basically what happened there a few years ago, the Supreme Court ruled correctly that when you have a government licensing board that is comprised entirely of private actors in that case, dentists they should not receive the same immunity from antitrust challenges that other forms of government receive. Is this thing called Park Community that says you cannot sue the government over interest laws, because it means you could sue them over anything. Consistingtal work entirely of dentists, who decided, surprise, surprise, nobody should be allowed to compete with them. Involving teeth whitening. There was legislation passed saying that only dentists could perform teeth whitening. A challengerought against the North Carolina dental board. It was given kind of the title of a government entity, but if you look at the members, none of them worked for the government. It went to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the fdc. You will see challenges to the antilicensing boards, particularly the ones comprised of private actors. I am not an antitrust lawyer, but it could end up being helpful. Allen we have time for one last question. I was wondering if you ever consider joining a consumer group. Were in that you are interfering with having my right to have my hair braided by whom i want. Have you ever considered joining a group like that . Justin we have. There have been quite a few of our cases where one of the secondary plaintiffs will be a consumer, and that is not just in such that is not just true for licensing cases, it is true for economic liberty and free speech cases where the person who wants to buy the service or the person who wants to hear the speech, they are being harmed, too. I really think adding them as plaintiffs is helpful to really show the court how ridiculous the government logic is. The government loves to get on its high horse about how they are protecting the public, but members of the public are saying we do not want to be protected. We want to contract with this person, why are you getting in the way . I do think it helps. I dont think we have noticed a difference that we could quantify in terms of the outcomes, based on whether we have a secondary plaintiff who is a consumer or not, but i think it has to help. So i am a big fan of doing it. We have done it and i hope we continue to do it. Allen thank you for joining me. Justin thank you. Name is adam cook and i am 20188 dean cspan studentcam winner. I encourage you to wrap up the competition because the deadline is getting close. Dont worry, you will still have time. This is about the time that i started selling my documentary, the first year i entered it. I am in the d. C. Offices and i will tell you that cspan gave me an opportunity to express my thoughts and my views about the Political Climate in the current day as well as connect with some local and state leaders in political office. I am extremely excited that you all are interested in this and are pursuing this because it is a onceinalifetime opportunity. I am so excited that you are undertaking it. Announcer there is still time to enter the cspan studentcam competition. Explore an issue that you want the president ial candidates to address during campaign 2020. We are giving away 100,000 in cash prizes with a grand prize of 5,000. For more information, go to our website, studentcam. Org. Announcer on cspan, washington journal is next. At 10 00 a. M. , a House Oversight subcommittee takes a look at the Economic Impact of climate change. Later, the White House Holds a summit on Mental Health treatment. Coming up on todays washington journal, Emory University professor Carol Anderson talks about voter suppression, which she writes about in one person, no vote