Testimony to the Nevada Senate: Competitor's Veto laws are unconstitutional
Last week I testified to the Nevada Senate Committee on Transportation about the state’s Competitor’s Veto laws in the transportation industry. The way these laws work is that when an applicant files a license for a limousine, taxi, or moving company, existing businesses have the right to protest that application. Existing firms can protest simply because they don’t want to compete. That protest subjects the applicant to a hearing in which he or she must prove to the government that there’s a market for the new services, and that the new business won’t harm existing businesses. Readers will recall we’ve filed a lawsuit in federal court arguing that these explicitly anti-competitive laws do not protect the public, but exist solely to protest existing businesses—and they therefore violate the Constitution.
Nevada is considering amending its laws to get rid of the anti-competitive criteria that the applicant must prove under the current statute. I attended the Committee’s hearing on those proposed amendments to explain why the laws, as they stand, are unfair, bad for entrepreneurs and consumers, and unconstitutional. You can watch my testimony here, which starts at 1:16 of the video, and you can view my written testimony here.
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 … ›