Occupational Licensing

Yes, Licensing Boards Are Cartels

The case for why Congress should get involved.


Jeff Malet Photography/Newscom

Licensing boards are perhaps the most powerful labor institution in American history.

The best estimates available suggest that roughly 30 percent of American workers are now required to get a license from one of those quasi-government agencies before they can enter the workforce. That's about the same percentage of the workforce that was a member of a union in the 1950s, the decade when union membership peaked before falling off to about half that percentage today.

There's no debate about whether the federal government has a role to play in regulating the activities of labor unions, of course. Should Congress do something about licensing boards?

"I think federal interest in this is really important," says Rebecca Allensworth, a professor of law at Vanderbilt University.

The "dirty secret behind licensing boards," Allensworth told the House Judiciary Committee on Tuesday afternoon, is that very little of what they do resembles government activity. While growing to become the largest labor institution in American history, they have too often become a self-serving institutions that act like cartels instead of protectors of public health and safety.

In research she published last year, Allensworth looked at all 1,790 state occupational licensing boards operating in America. Of those, she found that 1,515 (85 percent) of them were required by state statute to be comprised of a majority of currently licensed professionals in the same field.

"These boards are formed, by law, as cartels," Allensworth said Tuesday.

State legislatures have increasingly outsourced professional regulation to licensing boards, and in theory that's not necessarily a bad idea. Professionals working in a given field are likely to have more expertise about what rules might be needed. But in exchange for expertise, states have created the potential for professional self-dealing.

And that's not just theoretical. It's very real. In North Carolina, for example, a board comprised by a majority of actively practicing dentists decided in 2012 to send cease-and-desist letters to kiosks offering teeth whitening services. The practice of whitening teeth, the board declared, could only be done by licensed dentists.

In that instance, the Federal Trade Commission intervened. The whole case wound up in the Supreme Court, which ruled in 2015 that licensing boards controlled by a majority of "active market participants" could not make deliberately anticompetitive rules, unless those boards were "actively supervised" by some other element of state government.

Some states have responded to the Supreme Court ruling by changing how their boards operate, but the North Carolina Board of Dental Examiners v. FTC case created more questions than answers.

That's why Congress is now getting involved. In July, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), along with three Republican senators, introduced the Restoring Board Immunity Act to clarify how state licensing boards need to be structured in order to avoid potentially expensive lawsuits challenging boards' anticompetitive rules.

"You want them to be public entities, but virtually no states prohibit them from self-dealing," Issa said Tuesday during the hearing on the bill. Lawmakers would have recuse themselves from voting on legislation that affects their own businesses, but there is no such requirement for members of licensing boards, he pointed out.

In the end, licensing issues will be settled at the state level. Issa's bill is merely intended to steer states towards potential solutions to the problems created by the 2015 Supreme Court ruling. Among other things, states would have to pass legislation requiring lawmakers to conduct comprehensive reviews of their licensing boards every five years. Those would include a cost/benefit analysis and an assessment of any new licensing rules created since the last review.

There are federalism concerns about the RBI Act. Congress would be nudging states towards certain behavior with the carrot of immunity from antitrust lawsuit. Sarah Allen, a deputy attorney general in Virginia, said Tuesday that many states might be unwilling to make the changes suggested by Issa's bill, and would perhaps rather "take their chances" in court against potential anti-trust lawsuits like the one brought against the dental board in North Carolina.

The real problem, says Allensworth, is the regulatory infrastructure that has built up over the decades. There's almost unanimous, bipartisan agreement that licensing reform must be undertaken—good luck finding many other issues where Issa agrees with something the Obama administration said—yet the number of licensing laws continues to grow and more workers than ever before must get a government-issues permission slip before going to work.

The RBI act would make licensing regulations a function of the state government, the way they should be, Allensworth said, though she had a mixed opinion of some of the bill's provisions—including one element that would make it easier for workers and businesses to take licensing boards to court over disagreements.

"I want the state to take governmental responsibility for the regulation they create," she says. "Once states know the lay of the land, they will be able to balance the competitive costs of regulations themselves."

NEXT: SCOTUS Props Up Trump Travel Ban, Cop Pick-Pockets Hot Dog Vendor on Camera, Congress Worries Over 'Sextortion' and Doxxing: A.M. Links

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. There’s no debate about whether the federal government has a role to play in regulating the activities of labor unions, of course.

    Sounds like a challenge.

    1. Yeah, that’s a bold statement. Unless his argument is that they shouldn’t be involved with labor unions.

  2. There’s almost unanimous, bipartisan agreement that licensing reform must be undertaken?good luck finding many other issues where Issa agrees with something the Obama administration said?yet the number of licensing laws continues to grow and more workers than ever before must get a government-issues permission slip before going to work.

    Congress has bigger fish to not fry right now.

    1. You mean such as immigration?

  3. On a personal note, I don’t normally notice these things, but it struck me that this appears to be a well written, concise article on the topic. Good job, Boehm. Tell Reason I approve your bonus this year.

    1. Boehm’s bonus: three Krugerrands, a half-pound of marijuana, and an extra hour a week with the company sexbot.

      1. They switched to Cybercurrencies last fiscal year.

  4. I dunno. You state that licensing boards are cartels and then give one example. Not super convincing. Tell me, for example, how the state licensing boards for architects are cartels.

  5. Correct, state licensing boards ARE no business of FedGov. BUT…. there IS this niggly little bit in the Constitution that assigns Congress the responsibility for “making trade between the states regular”. When someone can get licensed as a barber in State C, then move to state G, and not be able to take up their former trade because of education and/or licensing requirements, THAT is a restrictioin on interstate commerce, and thus IS a congressional responsibility.

    Further, the Executive would have authority to enforce the Full Faith and Credit clause which requires each state to recognise stuff that is legal in another state. Oh how THAT one is selectively enforced…..

    It remains with the states to manage these issues, and comatose voters lie at the root of the problems. In states like California and New York and Illinois, of course… but then who is insane enough to LIVE in those states? Which state was it was mandating a woman who gave away her services for braiding hair to friends and relatives must now take some three thousand hours of cosmetology” and hair care education, at some outrageous cost, learning all manner of things having naught to do with braiding hair? Her state courts DID finally step up and get some things changed.

    Nannification, government-as-god, comatose voters….. they are what has wrought this situation.

  6. Basic principle of using the power of the state to increase your income through elimination of competition. Adam Smith in 1776 observed that whenever business people got together, one of the major topics was always how to eliminate competition so that you could earn a higher income.

    Same basic principle applies to professional organizations and labor unions. Both rely upon the use of force by the state to prevent “competition” and thus increase their own incomes. The AMA was organized in 1847 with just this objective in mind of using the force of the state to eliminate possible competition. The Wagner Act passed by the FDR administration did the same thing for labor unions. In both cases both professionals and union members depend upon the use of force by the state to get their way. The professions, being vastly overrepresented in Congress, have been more successful at this than the labor unions were. Republican governments have passed “right to work” laws but neither political party has been willing to treat the professions in the same way.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.