Across the country, a network of libertarian legal organizations is waging a systematic campaign to dismantle occupational licensing under the banner of economic freedom. Groups like the Institute for Justice and Pacific Legal Foundation have filed dozens of lawsuits claiming that licensing requirements for everything from hair braiding to home contracting violate workers' constitutional right to earn a living. But beneath the populist rhetoric lies a deregulatory agenda that would strip away hard-won worker protections and professional standards — with devastating consequences for the very communities these groups claim to champion.
Photo: Institute for Justice, via s3.amazonaws.com
The Licensing Landscape
Occupational licensing affects nearly 30% of American workers, up from just 5% in 1950. From nurses and teachers to cosmetologists and electricians, millions of professionals must obtain state-issued licenses to practice their trades legally. Critics rightfully point to instances of regulatory overreach — Louisiana's requirement that florists pass a written exam, or Utah's mandate that hair braiders complete 1,600 hours of training for a practice rooted in cultural tradition.
But the libertarian assault on licensing goes far beyond these obvious absurdities. The Institute for Justice has challenged licensing requirements for nursing assistants, massage therapists, and funeral directors — professions where public health and safety considerations are paramount. Their strategy involves recruiting individual plaintiffs, often people of color or immigrants, to serve as sympathetic faces for a broader deregulatory agenda.
The False Promise of Freedom
The "right to earn a living" movement frames licensing as a barrier to economic mobility, particularly for communities of color who may lack the resources to navigate complex certification processes. There's truth to this critique — licensing can create artificial scarcity that benefits incumbent professionals while excluding newcomers. Studies show that occupational licensing reduces employment in licensed professions by 17-27% and can increase wages for licensed workers by 10-15%.
However, this analysis ignores who actually benefits when professional standards disappear. Deregulation doesn't eliminate barriers to entry; it shifts them from formal credentials to informal networks of privilege. When licensing requirements vanish, hiring decisions become more subjective, opening the door to discrimination based on race, gender, or social connections.
Research from the Economic Policy Institute demonstrates that occupational licensing actually reduces racial wage gaps in many professions. Licensing creates objective standards that can override discriminatory hiring practices, providing clear pathways to middle-class wages for workers who might otherwise face systematic exclusion.
The Safety Net Stripped Away
Beyond wage effects, licensing serves crucial consumer protection functions that deregulation advocates conveniently ignore. Licensed professionals carry insurance, submit to background checks, and face disciplinary action for misconduct. When these requirements disappear, consumers — particularly vulnerable populations — lose critical protections.
The nursing assistant profession illustrates these dynamics perfectly. Licensed nursing assistants must complete state-approved training programs and pass competency exams before working in nursing homes or home health settings. They're subject to background checks and ongoing oversight by state health departments. Eliminating these requirements, as some libertarian groups advocate, would flood the market with untrained workers while removing accountability mechanisms for elder abuse or neglect.
Similar dynamics play out in the building trades, where licensing ensures that electricians and plumbers meet safety standards that protect homeowners from fires, floods, and structural failures. Deregulation might reduce short-term costs, but the long-term consequences — substandard work, safety hazards, and consumer fraud — disproportionately harm low-income communities who lack the resources to vet contractors independently.
The Corporate Beneficiaries
While the Institute for Justice portrays itself as a champion of individual liberty, its donor base reveals different priorities. The organization receives substantial funding from the Koch network and other corporate interests that benefit directly from deregulation. When professional standards disappear, large corporations can more easily exploit workers through independent contractor relationships that avoid wage and hour protections.
The gig economy provides a preview of this dynamic. Companies like Uber and TaskRabbit have successfully argued that their workers don't need traditional employee protections because they're "independent entrepreneurs." Extending this logic to licensed professions would allow corporations to hire unlicensed workers at below-market rates while shifting liability risks to individual contractors.
Reform vs. Elimination
Progressive critics of occupational licensing should distinguish between thoughtful reform and wholesale elimination. Sensible reforms might include interstate license recognition, streamlined renewal processes, and elimination of obviously unnecessary requirements. These changes could preserve consumer protections while reducing barriers to entry.
Several states have implemented successful licensing reforms that maintain professional standards while increasing accessibility. Colorado's "sunrise process" requires evidence of public harm before new licensing requirements can be imposed. Arizona has created alternative credentialing pathways for military spouses and immigrants with foreign credentials.
These targeted reforms differ fundamentally from the libertarian approach, which views all licensing as presumptively illegitimate. The difference matters because it determines whether reform strengthens or weakens worker power in the broader economy.
The Stakes for Workers
The outcome of the licensing debate will shape labor market dynamics for decades to come. If libertarian groups succeed in their deregulatory campaign, millions of workers will lose the wage premiums and job security that professional credentials provide. The result would be a more precarious workforce with fewer pathways to middle-class stability.
For communities of color in particular, this represents a profound setback. Occupational licensing has historically provided one of the few routes to economic advancement that doesn't depend on inherited wealth or social connections. Eliminating these pathways would push more workers into the informal economy, where exploitation and wage theft are endemic.
The "right to earn a living" movement offers false freedom — the liberty to work for less money with fewer protections in an economy increasingly dominated by corporate power.
