PLF takes challenge to the most anti-competitive licensing law in the country to the Ninth Circuit
As reported last week, a federal judge in Nevada dismissed Maurice Underwood’s right to earn a living. Underwood challenges a hopelessly vague Nevada licensing regime that requires anyone who wants to enter the moving business to prove that he wouldn’t compete with existing businesses. Nevada’s Competitor’s Veto law is the most anti-competitive law in the country.
This week, PLF attorneys filed an emergency motion in the Ninth Circuit asking for an injunction against any administrative enforcement proceedings pending its resolution of our appeal. The defendants in the constitutional challenge are threatening to enforce the unconstitutional licensing regime against Mr. Underwood. The outcome of the emergency motion may determine whether Mr. Underwood and others like him can defend their constitutional rights in court. If government agencies are allowed to institute administrative proceedings against challengers to unconstitutional laws, would-be entrepreneurs will be discouraged from defending their rights and the rights of others.
If you would like to know more, PLF’s Timothy Sandefur discussed this case and our Missouri mover case in our most recent podcast.
What to read next
PLF asks the U.S. Supreme Court to rule that there is no “legislative exception” to the unconstitutional conditions doctrine
It seems that some governments and courts prefer to treat Supreme Court precedent as an option, rather than a requirement. The Supreme Court has ruled—twice—that it’s unconstitutional for government to … ›