Missouri Hair Braiders

jocal505

moderate, informed, ex-gunowner
14,263
298
near Seattle, Wa
That's what happens in practice and it usually makes sense to me. But not always.

For example, before getting a final inspection and approval on my boat shed, I had to have a pest company come out and pump the ground (and ground water) full of... something... to kill termites. It's a steel building on a concrete pad.
Why? Because idiots like you just bury the concrete forms... creating a balanced diet for termites. 

 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
61,993
1,856
Punta Gorda FL
Why? Because idiots like you just bury the concrete forms... creating a balanced diet for termites. 
Hah! Shows what you know, amateur! You remove the forms first, then reinstall them before burying. Like this:

BoatportPad.jpg


 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
61,993
1,856
Punta Gorda FL
Supreme Court Blasts Economic Protectionism as it Strikes Down Durational Residency Requirements for Business Licenses
 

Arlington, Va.—By a 7-2 margin, the U.S. Supreme Court today issued a broadside against state-based economic protectionism as it struck down a Tennessee law that had required anyone seeking a retail liquor license to first reside in the state for two years—and 10 years before they could renew it.

“To put it mildly, today’s opinion by Associate Justice Samuel Alito and the six justices of the Court who joined with him was an indictment against in-state economic protectionism,” said Anya Bidwell, a nutjob with the Institute for Justice (IJ), which litigated the case on behalf of Doug and Mary Ketchum.

...
Gorsuch dissented, joined by Thomas.

 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
61,993
1,856
Punta Gorda FL
Kansas may not be safe for much longer against the horror of unlicensed eyebrow threaders

Jigisha Modi and Jignesh Biscuitwala are a married couple who together run Miracle Eyebrows, an eyebrow threading business with locations in Olathe and Shawnee, Kansas. Struggling to find potential employees, they hoped to hire Jignesh's mother, Jyotsna Biscuitwala, to come work for the family business. But Kansas' occupational licensing regime has made doing so incredibly difficult. 

...
Jyotsna Biscuitwala has 30 years of experience but the state wants her to complete 1,000 hours of mostly unrelated training before she can work.

As if getting through life with a name like Biscuitwala wasn't hard enough.

 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
61,993
1,856
Punta Gorda FL
Patel and its progeny
 

In Patel, the Texas Supreme Court held 6-3 that the state unconstitutionally licensed eyebrow threaders by making them learn a host of irrelevant cosmetology techniques for hundreds of hours. In a first-of-its-kind decision, the Court went on to adopt an exacting state constitutional standard for economic regulations. Five justices outright rejected the rational basis test often used in federal courts—the standard against which we have waged war for 30 years. (Rational basis often allows courts to rubberstamp laws and regulations so long as there is any conceivable rational basis, no matter how far-fetched, for what the government is doing.) A sixth justice believed the license failed even the government-friendly rational basis test. And Justice Don Willett (now a judge on the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals) wrote a tour-de-force concurrence extolling the freedom to earn an honest living.

We have since used our victory in Patel to file 20 new economic liberty cases in state court seeking to establish stronger constitutional protections for economic liberty. Already, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has adopted the Patel standard and the Georgia Supreme Court has unanimously indicated that it, too, will adopt a similar standard, in an ongoing case in which we are challenging the state’s licensing of lactation consultants.

There is more to come. In late 2020, IJ launched our post-Patel project to widely export Texas’s liberty-friendly standard. For example, we have a case pending in neighboring Louisiana challenging that state’s continued regulation of African hair braiding. In February 2021, we launched a case in Oklahoma challenging that state’s threading regulations—and the state agreed to a preliminary injunction based on Patel. We are also very excited to be litigating an appeal in Texas in which the state high court will be asked to extend Patel to restrictions on the doctor/patient relationship.

The decision has been impactful outside the courtroom, too. When we began representing Ash Patel, he had recently immigrated from India, and was working at a hotel and dreaming of starting his own business. After the state agreed not to enforce the law, he was able to start his threading business and, when we won, he opened new locations in Austin and Houston. He no longer works at hotels; he owns several of them. And he employs dozens of recent South Asian immigrants who moved to Texas to pursue their American Dreams. All of this was made possible because IJ was able to stand up to the government officials who were trying to drive Ash out of business.
Want to help poor, brown-skinned immigrants like Ash Patel thrive in America? Here's an idea: let 'em work! Here's another idea.

 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
61,993
1,856
Punta Gorda FL
The law also includes a provision preventing Florida cities from banning food trucks or requiring operators to obtain an additional local license or pay additional fees in order to vend. Florida is the third state to create such a law, following in the steps of California and Arizona.
And more good news for Florida food truck operators: Fort Pierce Ban Permanently Gone
 

...

Fort Pierce’s proximity ban was one of the most stringent in the country, making it almost impossible to do business in the city. A Florida circuit court ruled in February 2019 that the ban likely violated the Florida Constitution and granted the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, allowing food truck vendors to operate in the city during the litigation. In response, Fort Pierce repealed the ban, but Benny and Brian would not drop their lawsuit until the city agreed never to bring back the ban. This judgment ensures that the food truck ban is gone for good.

“This final judgment is a victory for the Florida Constitution and the right to earn an honest living,” said IJ’s Florida Office Managing Nutjob Justin Pearson. “The government is not allowed to pick winners and losers in the marketplace. That choice belongs to consumers.”

The law’s sole purpose was to protect existing restaurants from competition, a fact the city repeatedly mentioned while enacting the ban; in 2014, then-Commissioner Edward Becht said that the 500-foot ban exists because allowing food trucks to compete for business would, “hurt the brick-and-mortar businesses.”

But the Florida Constitution protects the right of individuals to earn an honest living free from unreasonable government interference. There is no legitimate justification for prohibiting a food truck from operating on a certain block because a brick-and-mortar business located almost two football fields away also sells food. Moreover, the Florida Supreme Court has repeatedly held that protectionism is not a legitimate government interest under the Florida Constitution.

Benny Diaz celebrated the final end to his legal fight with Fort Pierce with the knowledge that he will not be stopped from serving customers his delicious tacos at his Taco Trap food truck.

...



 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
61,993
1,856
Punta Gorda FL
Unless they happen to operate food trucks in Tarpon Springs, like Elijah and Ashley Durham
 

Today, the owners of a Florida food truck vowed to continue their legal battle against Tarpon Springs after a Florida court decided that they could not sue the city over an ordinance that requires independently operated food trucks to use someone else’s name in order to operate downtown. Elijah and Ashley Durham opened SOL Burger last year when Elijah lost his job as a chef during the pandemic. Soon after opening in their town, Tarpon Springs passed an ordinance that banned trucks from downtown unless they were owned by a brick-and-mortar restaurant. In May, Elijah and Ashley, represented by the Institute for Justice (IJ), sued the city in Florida court.

Following Elijah and Ashley’s widely covered lawsuit, Tarpon Springs changed its tune and said that independent food trucks could operate in the city but only if they “temporarily re-branded” by using the name of the business at which they were operating. Forcing an otherwise legal business to use someone else’s name to operate is a blatant free-speech violation. Doing so also robs Elijah and Ashley of the opportunity to build their brand, which is critical to success in the food service industry. Unfortunately, the trial court’s decision ruled that Elijah and Ashley cannot modify their suit to bring the free-speech claim until they have actually suffered the harm of using someone else’s name.

“Tarpon Springs should not be able to escape the scrutiny of the courts by substituting one constitutional violation for another,” said IJ Nutjob Ben Field. “SOL Burger should be able to operate on the private property they are invited onto and operate under their own name. We hope that the court of appeal will take the free-speech violation seriously.”

“It is textbook constitutional law that someone whose speech has been chilled can bring a free-speech claim,” said Justin Pearson, IJ’s Florida Office Managing Nutjob. “Unfortunately, the trial court disagreed. We look forward to the appeal.”

...

 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
61,993
1,856
Punta Gorda FL
Criticize the government and lose your license.
 

Earlier this month, Joshua Gray, a private investigator from Massachusetts, filed a petition for certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court asking the Court to reverse a decision by the Maine Department of Public Safety denying him a license as a professional investigator in Maine. The Department based its denial on the fact that it disapproved of Gray’s criticism of the Department’s own employees’ conduct in a police shooting that left two dead. The Institute for Justice (IJ) filed the petition on Gray’s behalf.

IJ Senior Nutjob and lead counsel Paul Sherman said, “When the government retaliates against people because of their speech, it violates the First Amendment. That’s true whether the government is imposing a fine, withholding a parade permit, or denying an occupational license.”

...
We seem to have lots of fans of occupational licensing over in the Ivermectin thread at the moment. Weird that none of them ever comment on the excesses.

 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
61,993
1,856
Punta Gorda FL
Louisiana is still marked safe from unlicensed florists.

And they seem pretty proud of it because you can pay your fee and take your test online now, and even receive your results immediately! Good government in action!

The thing about that is...

this was true in 2010 and remains true today:
 

...

“H.B 1407 gives aspiring florists and entrepreneurs more freedom to pursue their chosen occupation free from blatantly anti-competitive government interference,” declared Tim Keller, the Institute for Justice’s lead nutjob in Chauvin v. Strain. “In light of this new law, and the fact that three of our clients have taken and passed the state’s written examination, we will declare victory and move to voluntarily dismiss our case.”

Before the new law passed, Louisiana required would-be florists to pass both a written test and a highly subjective demonstration examination, in which they were given four hours to create four floral arrangements that were then judged by a panel of state-licensed florists—i.e., their own future competitors. The written test remains on the books for now, but it presents a relatively minor government hoop that people must jump through before they may sell floral arrangements in Louisiana.

“Arranging and selling flowers is a completely harmless occupation,” continued Keller. “Therefore, the Institute for Justice will continue to monitor the state’s written exam to ensure that it remains an insubstantial barrier for would-be florists. If necessary, we are certainly prepared to file a new lawsuit in order to finish the job that H.B. 1407 started by eliminating the practical exam, which has always been the real root of the problem here in Louisiana.”

“There is no need for the government to test or license would-be florists,” Keller concluded. “The only purpose served by the written exam is to raise funds for the state through licensing fees while setting up unnecessary—but in this case fairly trivial —barriers to entrepreneurship. The legislature should take the next step and eliminate the written examination.”





 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
61,993
1,856
Punta Gorda FL
The 9th Circuit is taking a look at whether California should become Somalia
 

...

Bob Smith runs Pacific Coast Horseshoeing School (PCHS) just outside of Sacramento, Ca. He teaches aspiring farriers how to shoe horses. For students with limited formal education, trade schools like PCHS are traditionally the most accessible path to the middle class. But because of a California law requiring vocational schools like Bob’s to require students have a high school diploma, or pass an equivalency test, he has to turn away many prospective students, including Esteban Narez.

In April 2017, Esteban applied to PCHS after learning about it through a farrier. But California law required Bob to deny Esteban’s application because he never finished high school. Years earlier, Esteban had been forced to leave high school early in his senior year to recover from a tear in the medial collateral ligament (MCL) of his knee. That makes Esteban an “ability-to-benefit” student under state law, meaning he would have to pass a government-approved test that has nothing to do with horseshoeing before PCHS could teach him to shoe horses. Like many working-class Californians who fell on hard times, Esteban has neither the time nor resources to waste on a useless test.

Bob and Esteban partnered with the Institute for Justice to file a lawsuit challenging the California law as a violation of their First Amendment rights to teach and to learn.

...


Expand  


That doesn't seem to me like one they can win. A better outcome would be for California to become Somalia, meaning repeal their counterproductive regulation.
Libertarians succeed in turning California into Somalia
 


Quote



After more than four years of litigation, Bob Smith and Pacific Coast Horseshoeing School (PCHS) are free to return to teaching horseshoeing to students who have not completed high school or an equivalent government-mandated exam. 

...

“I’m excited that I will never again be forced to turn away someone simply because of their educational status,” Bob said. “Horseshoeing has nothing to do with calculus, writing or social studies. Horses don’t do math, and horses don’t read books. If you can shoe a horse, you can shoe a horse.” 

...

Both teaching and learning are protected by the First Amendment. That doesn’t change just because someone pays to learn or gets paid to teach. If Bob were to write a book or record a YouTube video on horseshoeing, the State of California couldn’t punish him. Teaching a group of tuition-paying students is no different. To protect his First Amendment rights, as well as the rights of his students, Bob and PCHS partnered with IJ and challenged the law.

“For too long, governments have claimed that so-called ‘occupational speech’ isn’t protected by the Constitution,” said Paul Avelar, Managing Nutjob of IJ’s Arizona Office. “But speech is speech, regardless of where it’s said, who says it, or if is their job to say it. What Bob—and millions of other Americans who sell their advice and teaching—does is clearly protected by the First Amendment.”

...
Hordes of uneducated farriers are going to sweep across the land, causing devastation everywhere they go! Or something.

I'm not really sure why this is bad, but there's a thread full of people who seem to know and won't say.

 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
61,993
1,856
Punta Gorda FL
Look at all the big-gov't laws the Rs put in place. Regulations of companies they don't like, but laws against the little people? They are all for that. 
Actually, the crony-capitalist practice of hobbling competition with protectionist legislation is very much a bipartisan thing.

That's why people who think they should be able to braid hair without doing 1,500 hours of training that doesn't touch on braiding hair have to look to obscure nutjob outfits like IJ to fight back.

 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
61,993
1,856
Punta Gorda FL
Texas is marked Safe from mechanics with inadequate parking. For now.

Meddlesome libertarians are trying to impose their will again
 

...

Earlier this year, Azael purchased his new shop on Shaver Street with the hope of expanding his business. In order to buy the new shop, he spent all of his savings and took out a loan with his house as collateral. But after he purchased the property, he learned the city required him to spend $40,000 to install a second parking lot, which will sit entirely empty and that he cannot afford. He expressed his concerns to the city, and officials told him to apply for a variance – an exception to the rule. But when he applied, officials refused to even consider his variance. Officials never explained their rationale and refused to meet with him or his attorneys.

Azael’s property already has five parking spots, which is more than enough for Azael’s needs. His shop is a one-man operation; he accepts customers by appointment only and he only services a few cars per day. He has no need for 23 additional parking spots.

“I’ve put everything on the line to grow my business and provide for my family,” Azael said. “I’ve operated with a handful of parking spaces for years and had no problem. Now the city is stopping me from achieving my dream and threatening to put me out of business.”

Pasadena’s parking requirements for auto mechanics are some of the strictest—if not the most strict–in the state. They are much higher than requirements for every other similarly sized city across the state, as well as larger cities such as Houston, San Antonio, Fort Worth, Austin and Dallas. Cities throughout the country are moving away from parking minimums because they are extremely expensive for businesses to satisfy, often leaving prime real estate empty and depriving cities of green space.

“There is national momentum to reform or end minimum parking laws because of the harm they cause. Pasadena is moving in the wrong direction by saddling small business owners with costly and unneeded burdens,” said IJ Nutjob Diana Simpson.

...
OK, so it's not occupational licensing, but it's still protectionist BS. Similar enough.

 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
61,993
1,856
Punta Gorda FL
Occupational speech is related to occupational licensing, so I guess this goes in this thread.

A win for first amendment protection of commercial speech
 

I'm glad that Dr. Hines won.
Dr. Hines and the nutjobs won again.
 

Thursday afternoon, Brownsville, Texas, veterinarian Dr. Ron Hines scored an important First Amendment win when the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas ruled that Texas must satisfy the Constitution’s most demanding free-speech standard if it wants to restrict what Dr. Hines may say to pet owners.

...

Dr. Hines first teamed up with IJ in 2013 to challenge Texas’ requirement that he first examine an animal in person before giving any kind of advice that pet owners around the world sought from him. But the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in 2015 that his advice was regulated by occupational licensure and hence not protected by the First Amendment. After a landmark 2018 Supreme Court decision (NIFLA v. Becerra) rejected the so-called “professional speech doctrine,” which excluded occupational speech from the First Amendment, Dr. Hines again partnered with IJ in 2018 to vindicate his right to free speech.

In 2020, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that occupational speech is protected by the First Amendment, then sent Dr. Hines’ challenge down to the trial court to assess whether Dr. Hines’ advice counted as “speech” or “conduct.” Unsurprisingly, the court agreed with Dr. Hines’ position that advice is speech. Now, Dr. Hines will have the opportunity for the court to declare once and for all that his First Amendment rights were violated.

“A victory for Dr. Hines is a victory for all Americans who want to seek or give advice online,” said IJ Nutjob Andrew Ward, who also represents Dr. Hines.

The case will now proceed to the “discovery” phase, and, ultimately, a final judgment.
He was telecommuting before it was cool. Soon, it will likely be legal, if this libertarian assault on all that is good and sacred succeeds.

 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
61,993
1,856
Punta Gorda FL
Watertown, South Dakota soon to be overrun with rogue taxi operators after bowing to nutjob pressure.
 

...

The ordinance currently prevents taxi companies from operating in the city, unless the City Council determines there is a “necessity” for that business. It strictly applies to businesses like Debra’s that accept cash payment, but not to app-based ride-sharing companies like Uber and Lyft. A representative from Lyft testified against Debra when she was recently making her case to the City Council that there was a need for her business.

“Certificate of necessity laws drive up costs for consumers, keep potential entrepreneurs like Debra out of the market, and should be repealed,” said IJ Senior Nutjob Erica Smith Ewing, who wrote the letter challenging the city’s ordinance. “We’re very happy that the city has agreed to let Debra reopen her business, and we hope this change sets an example for other municipalities to end their certificate of necessity laws.”

Debra has a South Dakota state license that allows her to transport passengers. She had been doing so in several towns without a problem and when she started doing business in Watertown, residents welcomed her with open arms. There was only one taxi company in Watertown and it only operated from 6am to 10pm—which was a problem for people with early flights at the airport or who needed a ride home after drinking on the town. In the meantime, there were few Lyft and Uber drivers, and they often charged up to $75 just to go a few miles. Debra’s new business provided a much needed and more affordable service.

But then things went wrong. The Watertown Police Department conducted a sting operation on her business. An officer hailed a ride from one of Debra’s drivers, and when the officer gave the driver a cash payment at the end of the ride, Need-A-Ride was fined $100 for violating the ordinance. Following the sting, Debra attended a City Council meeting to make her case for getting a license, but city officials denied her request.

Debra was stuck in limbo. She either had to stop accepting payment or stop providing rides altogether. Because many of her customers rely on her to get to and from work, and others use her as a sober ride home from the bar, she decided to continue operating Need-A-Ride without charging. But during this time, she was losing out on important income.

...
She should sue for the lost income.

I can see why the rep from Lyft didn't see any need for competition. $75 to go a few miles?

 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
61,993
1,856
Punta Gorda FL
Nutjobs try to turn California into Somalia
 

I suspect that what Fernando Herrera calls the "street lifestyle" is what I would call the "stupid drug war lifestyle."

A good first step toward getting convicted felons to reintegrate into society would be letting them reintegrate into society.
This case was dismissed by the district court last February, now being appealed to the 9th Circuit.

9th Circuit to take up challenge to Calif. ban on felons becoming EMTs

...

A federal judge in Sacramento dismissed the case last February, agreeing with the state that its interest in preserving public safety provided a rational basis for adopting the ban.

The American Civil Liberties Union, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, and conservative groups, including the Cato Institute and Pacific Legal Foundation, have joined the plaintiffs in urging the 9th Circuit to revive the case.

The ACLU and other left-leaning groups in amicus briefs filed in May focused on the ban's disproportionate impact on Black and Latino people, who are more likely to have felony convictions. And the conservative groups told the court that categorical licensing bans for convicted felons often have no connection to the underlying jobs and can increase recidivism by depriving people of work opportunities.

The California Attorney General's office in an August brief said the case was properly dismissed because the plaintiffs did not show that they were "similarly situated" to EMT applicants with no criminal history.

The AG noted that criminal laws frequently distinguish between individuals with and without felony convictions, and no court has found that unconstitutional.

...

The plaintiffs countered that not all felony crimes are relevant to whether a person is fit for EMT licensing, so it was arbitrary for the state to bar certification for all convicted felons.

The ban is particularly vexing, they said, because California uses prisoners to help fight wildfires but then effectively bars them from becoming firefighters once they are released.

The case is Gurrola v. Duncan, 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 21-15414.

...
Though I'm not happy about it, I think the State has the better argument and the nutjobs will lose again, despite support from the ACLU and NAACP.

Fernando Herrera was 14 when he got two adult felonies. Now he can't be a firefighter for the rest of his life. It's just dumb, but not unconstitutional. People with felonies are not "similarly situated" to people with none. The fix here is legislative, not in court. Even if they win at the 9th, the nutjobs are going to lose this one at SCOTUS.

 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
61,993
1,856
Punta Gorda FL
Another article on the same subject:

Ninth Circuit considers lifting ban on two-time felons becoming EMTs in California
 

...

But Lisa Tillman, an attorney arguing for the state, said the bans are in the public interest given that an emergency medical technician is one of the most important roles in public safety and should only be held by individuals who have consistently demonstrated good judgment in their personal and professional lives. 

“Emergency technicians work in exigent circumstances where good judgment is necessary,” she said. 

U.S. Circuit Judge Ryan Nelson, also a Trump appointee, asked if other similar laws that have been struck down include professions where people have access to narcotics. 

Tillman responded in the negative. 

She further argued the Legislature clearly intended that EMT certification should be reserved for those with fewer than two felony convictions and that courts cannot second-guess legislative intent. 

“The Legislature found this scheme to be appropriate,” Tillman said. “Our job is not to second-guess the Legislature as long as there is rational basis.”

...
So the stupid drug war is another reason the nutjobs are likely to lose this one.

 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
61,993
1,856
Punta Gorda FL
Mississippi's CON Con Going To Trial
 

A federal judge in Mississippi will allow a major challenge to the state's Certificate of Need (CON) health care regulations to proceed, over the objections of the state's attorneys, after finding "plausible" evidence that those rules have increased costs and reduced access to health care.

...

"This moratorium, or some version of it, has remained in place for 40 years. Four decades! And, since this moratorium was imposed, the number of home health patients has increased by at least 194 percent," wrote Judge Carlton W. Reeves in the order issued this week that will allow the case to proceed on the merits. "Now, one can only enter the market if a current operator is willing to sell their CON."

Reeves ruled that attorneys for the plaintiff in the case, Charles "Butch" Slaughter, a physical therapist who is seeking to open his own home health care service, had presented enough evidence that the state's CON laws were not fulfilling their original intent.

That's a bigger deal than it might at first seem. Regular readers of Reason are probably well aware of the practical and policy problems created by CON laws—but as a legal matter, it can be difficult to challenge those regulations because of the rational basis test. In short, government attorneys can usually get judges to dismiss those cases by simply presenting some "rational" justification for why the regulations exist. It's a legal doctrine that is exceedingly deferential to state power, even in situations where the justification for regulation is quite different from the original intent.

Before a court will even agree to hear a challenge like this on the merits, plaintiffs have to convince a judge that the government's bare-bones justifications are inadequate. That's what the Mississippi Justice Institute, which is representing Slaughter in this case, has managed to do.

Even the "great deference" due to regulators under the rational basis standard, Reeves wrote, "does not…require courts to accept nonsensical explanations for regulation."

Slaughter's lawsuit, originally filed in December 2020, notes that only 16 other states have CON laws regulating home health care agencies at all. Mississippi is one of just two states with an arbitrary cap on the number of CON licenses. If 48 states are getting by without this rule, it is hard to believe it is necessary. Attorneys from the Mississippi Justice Institute argue that the law is "absurd" and "serves absolutely no purpose other than preventing legitimate competition and creating an oligopoly for existing providers."

"Plaintiff has set forth allegations negating the state's purported bases for the laws," wrote Reeves. "The allegations reveal that CON laws result in more costly, less accessible, and worse quality health care. What's more, plaintiff claims that the basis for CON laws and the moratoria is pure economic protectionism—an illegitimate government interest."

That doesn't mean the courts will eventually strike down Mississippi's nonsensical and anti-competitive ban on issuing licenses for home health care services. But it does mean that the state will have to actually defend those nonsensical and anti-competitive rules in court, rather than merely waving away the challenge on the grounds that regulators can do whatever they like.

And that ought to be fun to watch.
If I owned one of those Certificate of Need things and my patient pool had increased by 194% since 1981 while my competition had increased not at all, I might just like that state of affairs. Maybe even see a rational basis for it. It's protecting public health!

Will Butch Slaughter get the first new license since 1981 after the ban is struck down? Maybe. But for now it's nice to see a judge decide that a rational basis has to be, you know, rational.

 

Latest posts




Top