PLF to Ninth Circuit: Let our challenge to Nevada’s Competitor’s Veto law go forward
On Thursday, I’ll be in San Francisco arguing on behalf of Reno entrepreneur Maurice Underwood. He’s the business owner who tried to start a moving company in Reno only to learn that that state has the nation’s most anti-competitive licensing law—a Competitor’s Veto law that prohibits new companies from opening up if they would compete against existing businesses. We filed suit, but the trial court threw the case out because Underwood had not applied for a license before suing.
Of course, you are not required to apply for a license before suing, and we’ll be arguing that Maurice’s lawsuit should be allowed to go forward. In the meantime, we’re filed two new cases challenging the Silver State’s monopolistic laws for taxi and moving companies. We’re suing on behalf of Reno limousine company owner Danelle Perlman and Sacramento moving company owner Steve Saxon. Those cases are in the trial court right now.
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 … ›