On The Front Lines
Denouncing Burdensome Overregulation, Rutherford Institute Asks Supreme Court to Strike Law Requiring a Government License to Braid Hair
WASHINGTON, DC — Denouncing senseless overregulation, especially as it relates to occupational licensing laws, The Rutherford Institute is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to strike down a Missouri law requiring individuals to secure a costly license in order to braid hair. In weighing in on Niang v. Tomblinson, Rutherford Institute attorneys argue that licensing restrictions that require a government license in order to perform work-related tasks that pose no health or safety risks such as braiding hair deprive citizens of their constitutional right to earn a living at their chosen vocation. For instance, although African-style hair braiding poses no health or safety risks, the state of Missouri requires stylists to expend thousands of dollars for training that has nothing to do with hair braiding in order to be eligible for a license to offer African-style hair braiding services to the public. The Institute’s amicus brief points out that an essential liberty protected by the Constitution is the right to freely choose and pursue an occupation, but pointless occupational licensing laws that disproportionately harm the poor and minorities have made it impossible for many to exercise that right.
Attorneys Anand Agneshwar, Michael A.F Johnson, Kyle Gooch, Zachary Sweebe, and Dirk C. Phillips, Michael J. Lockerby, David A. Hickerson and George E. Quillen of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer in Washington, DC, and New York, NY, assisted The Rutherford Institute with the Niang brief.
“This case, which challenges whether one needs a government license in order to braid hair, strikes at the heart of the bureaucratic exercise in absurdity that has pushed overregulation and overcriminalization to outrageous limits,” said constitutional attorney John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute and author of Battlefield America: The War on the American People. “Unfortunately, it’s not just hair braiding that has become grist for the overregulation mill. Almost every aspect of American life today—especially if it is work-related—is subject to this kind of heightened scrutiny and ham-fisted control, whether you’re talking about aspiring bakers, florists, tour guides, taxi drivers, eyebrow threaders, teeth whiteners, and more.”
After years of practice and experience, Ndioba Niang and Temeka Stigers have developed a talent for African-style hair braiding, a natural hair care technique that involves intricate braiding and locking to create culturally distinctive hair designs. Niang and Stigers do not use chemicals, heat or any other process that could be dangerous to persons, and the hair braiding service they provide in the St. Louis area is generally not available from barbers, hair salons and cosmetologists. However, Missouri law requires all persons engaged in cosmetology, which is defined as the arranging, dressing or waving of hair, to obtain a license. Doing so would require Niang and Stigers to take at least 1,500 hours of classwork costing $12,000 and then pass an examination. Additionally, virtually none of the classwork or the questions on the examination pertain to African-style hair braiding. Alleging that the state’s licensing requirement is costly and arbitrary, Niang and Stigers challenged the requirement in court. The lower courts rejected their claims. Niang and Stigers subsequently asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear their case. In its brief supporting Niang and Stigers’ Supreme Court petition, The Rutherford Institute argues that economic liberty and the right to earn a living—fundamental rights protected by the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution—cannot be restricted by irrational occupational licensing requirements.
