Rudy Carey Was Pardoned, but the Unjust Law That Kept Him From Working Is Still on the Books
Virginia’s barrier crime law limits employment prospects for ex-offenders, who often find their way back into the penal system when they can’t find work.

In 2018, after five years of working diligently as an addiction counselor in Virginia, Rudy Carey received devastating news: He could no longer legally work. The reason? His criminal record included a barrier crime.
Barrier crimes are convictions typically involving abuse or neglect that can impede an individual from later employment. Many states have such laws in place. Virginia's barrier crime law prohibits individuals with a conviction for any of the law's 176 enumerated crimes from working in a "direct care" position. In Carey's case, an assault conviction from 2004 barred him from working as a licensed addiction counselor under Virginia law.
Carey became addicted to drugs in 1988 after he lost his father. His addiction led him to make poor decisions and garner a criminal record. Carey's most serious crime occurred in 2004 when he struck a police officer during a traffic stop while under the influence.
He served three years in prison for that offense. When he left prison, Carey was committed to getting his life back on track: He attended rehab, found work, and reconnected with his family. He did everything he was "supposed" to do to become an upstanding member of society.
Eventually, Carey found his way into the addiction counseling field. Having successfully escaped the throes of addiction himself, he was able to guide his clients with compassion and empathy. Carey says that because of his history, he was deeply passionate about his work, which gave him a fulfilling career and his clients a capable counselor.
When beginning his counseling career, Carey's employer was aware that his criminal record included a barrier crime. To keep Carey at his job, the employer classified Carey as a contract employee and requested that he continue his education and file documentation through the Virginia governor's office for a pardon.
But after years of successfully advising his clients, receiving stellar reviews from his employer, and going back to school to receive his bachelor's degree, Carey was let go. The organization's legal team advised that the risk of employing Carey with his criminal background, despite meeting his employer's demands, was too high.
Carey defied the odds—but it was a challenge.
Discussing losing the job he was so passionate about, Carey notes, "It really damaged my self-esteem: mentally, spiritually, emotionally. It was a really dark period for me."
Carey was given the option to work in an administrative role at a counseling facility, but it would have meant taking a massive pay cut. Under immense pressure to figure out how to make ends meet, Carey persevered with the support of his family and found stable work as a truck driver.
In July 2021, the Institute for Justice, a public-interest law firm, took Carey on as a pro bono client to challenge Virginia's barrier crime law. After two years of litigation and several painful delays to appeals hearings, the court case was set for October 2023.
But this yearslong nightmare ended for Carey before his day in court. On September 7, 2023, he received a call from the office of Gov. Glenn Youngkin, informing him that he had been issued a pardon for crimes he committed from 1994 to 2004.
"It's like you have a new life," Carey says through grateful tears, recalling the moment he learned he had received the pardon. "My life changed."
With this pardon, Carey was then able to return to work legally as an addiction counselor.
Carey says getting back into the field has been complicated. He has had to go back into a supervised role and study to take a licensing exam. Nevertheless, he says he's grateful to have the ability to work a job he finds so gratifying while supporting his family and community.
While there was a happy ending for Carey, many other Virginians are still being punished for their criminal records despite having completed their sentences.
Since Carey received a pardon, he lost legal standing, and his case was dropped by the court. Institute for Justice attorney Andrew Ward explains, "By the governor pardoning [Carey], it also had the effect of the law going unchallenged because that removed his ability to sue."
Virginia's barrier crime law is still standing. Speaking on the frustrations with the law, Ward explains, "You are ineligible for the rest of your life even though you are helping people when there is a drug abuse crisis in Virginia, according to Gov. Youngkin. The state agency that's in charge of this, the Department of Behavioral Health and Developmental Services, did a review and said [Virginia's barrier crime] law is keeping out qualified people with invaluable experience."
Lauren Krisai of Justice Action Network, a nonprofit focused on criminal justice reform, notes, "The goal of getting somebody to come out of prison is to get them a job. That is the number one factor in reducing recidivism and making sure they don't go back to prison."
By having an overly broad law that restricts a vast range of ex-offenders from working in countless fields, Virginia is creating incredibly high barriers for these citizens to find stable, well-paying jobs that would allow them to get back on the right track and reenter society. With limited employment prospects, ex-offenders often find their way back into the penal system.
Youngkin should be applauded for issuing the pardon that allowed Carey to pursue his livelihood and give back to his community. But there is more to be done. As long as this law is still on the books, other ex-offenders who have served their time like Carey will be blocked from finding stable, meaningful work.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Without this law, would VA be able to LEGALLY prevent true dangers from sensitive jobs? This sounds like a edge case, so how many people would be put at risk if this law is repealed?
Why not leave that decision to individual employers?
This is an absolute classic example of what government has no business doing, and thus does badly. They pass some one-size-fits-nobody legislation, 10% of its victims see some minor improvements overall, everyone else gets fucked, so they pass some modification with a new one-size-fits-nobody solution, rinse, lather, repeat.
Better to just stay the fuck out and leave people to figure it out for themselves, but oh no, the busybodies of the political world can't have that, won't someone PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN.
Fuck government.
Because .gov is the one that will sue them for civil rights violation if they don't hire him or some other reason if they do and he does something bad?
So you justify government overreach because government overreach is rampant and incompetent?
I don't know what you're arguing for or against.
Don't worry, I doubt she does either.
1. I am a He.
2. I am more conservative, in the ‘Don’t just do something, stand there’ variety. In the abstract, I agree that the state should be out of the job of saying who can or can’t work in any occupation. Doctor, Lawyer, Beautician, Dentist, Commercial Truck Driver. Making a living is not a ‘privelige. At the same time, pulling on the heart strings for one or a few people to radically change a legal framework is very … progressive.
Carey became addicted to drugs in 1988 after he lost his father. His addiction led him to make poor decisions and garner a criminal record.
Totally sounds like an edge case, based on the fluffing of the dude in the article.
I feel for the guy not being able to do a job he might be good at. But this framing is bullshit. Addiction didn't lead him to make poor decisions, HE made poor decisions. Starting with doing the drugs in the first place.
Addiction didn't just happen at random. He didn't catch it at school like a cold or the flu. He didn't get struck by addiction like a bolt of lightning. Likewise, addiction didn't make him strike a cop.
If the law's unjust, present that argument on its own merits. Don't do the stilted emotional manipulation worthy of a local television news channel (back when there was such a thing).
Rule 1 of Journalism, well maybe rule 2, rule 1 is probably if it bleeds it leeds. So rule 2 of Journalism, make the story personal. If there isn't an obvious victim then the story is just a sanitized opinion piece about a law. By bringing an actual human being who was negatively affected by the law, after having spent years doing the right thing, you make the story something people can identify with.
There but for a few bad choices and a lot of bad luck go I.
After selling a zip top bag of marijuana leaves, with a THC level so low I doubt the tests even found any, to a fucking narc I discovered myself how the system treats people who made poor choices. 30+ years later I still can't legally own a gun and have to mention it on an insane list of things like applications for renting an apartment and of course every job application ever. Were it not for my boss being the best guy in the fucking world and hiring me back to my old job I'd likely have riden the repeat offender roller coaster. As such with a good referance in the industry I was able to keep working as a locksmith and electronic security serviceman. Not many people get that lucky.
The problem with the term "felon" is most people assume only really violent crimes can get a felony punishment. They figure that non violent crimes are misdemenors and when they hear of felons being denied work they think that it makes sense. When they find out drug sales are a felony they tend to be shocked. The idea that selling weed to buddies is prosecuted the same as some asshole who beat the shit out of their roommate is crazy.
There needs to be some kind of process, that doesn't involve having to hire a lawyer, to get your rights back after living a normal life for a given period of time. Getting a governor to pardon a person is a huge hassle that costs way too much for a normal person.
Correction: the law that kept him from working the specific job he wanted.
The reality is that nothing kept him from working, and the article even comes right out and says he could have worked in the same industry and DID find work in another industry.
There's an old saying. "Beggars can't be choosers."
And when decent society decides to let a rehabilitated criminal back into its fold, it's not with a sense of, "You've done your time, congratulations you're one of us again!" It's, "You've done your time, but we haven't forgotten that bridge you burned still a pile of ash." You've served out your sentence and been released, but you're still a convicted criminal. It a permanent mark that doesn't wash off, sorry (not sorry). And they're coming to us hat in hand, hoping that we look past their criminal convictions and give them a chance.
We're allowed to say no. Convicts aren't entitled to squat from the rest of society.
And what are we talking about here in the first place. From the law: "Care" means the provision of care, treatment, education, training, instruction, supervision, or recreation to children or the elderly or disabled.
We're talking about the most vulnerable members of our society and trying to advance the idea that convicted criminals should be automatically regarded as worthy of a position of trust around them.
That is retarded. Reason has some seriously dumbass takes on a variety of subjects, but this is one of the dumbest ones to date. Barrier Laws are not unjust in any way shape or form, and Sofia is an idiot for suggesting otherwise.
And for anyone that wants to whine about the nature of the crime? Shut up. Just, shut up. It's against the law. If you don't like the law, then fight to change it - but until it's changed obey it. You don't get to cry foul and you get zero pity, when you know what you're doing is illegal, and you do it anyway.
I'm sure Mr. Carey is a very nice guy who got a very object lesson from the school of hard knocks. But actions have consequences - including ones that are unforeseen and far-reaching. And those consequences SHOULD exist, if only as a cautionary tale for anyone who wants to make the same poor/bad life choices.
Automatically review cases after sentence served and five (variable) clean years, Pardon unless otherwise indicated.
Because the justice system isn't already overburdened and lacking resources to begin with.