Opinion: exploring the legal basis for character requirements
This opinion piece argues that the legal system applies substantially different standards when government restrictions affect the right to work compared with constitutionally protected rights such as firearm ownership. Using the Supreme Court’s June 2026 decision in United States v. Hemani as a point of comparison, the author contends that occupational licensing boards can continue to deny licenses based on past criminal convictions, including relatively minor drug-related offenses, under broadly framed “good moral character” requirements. The piece points to examples of individuals denied occupational licenses because of past conduct and argues that courts generally give states considerable latitude to impose such licensing restrictions, requiring only a rational basis for the rules. The author attributes this distinction to constitutional jurisprudence that provides greater protection to enumerated rights than to the unenumerated right to earn a living and argues that historical practices do not support using minor criminal records as a basis for excluding people from licensed occupations. For professional regulatory organizations, the commentary raises questions about the appropriate use of criminal history and character requirements in occupational licensing, the relationship between public protection and barriers to licensure, and the legal standards that may apply when licensing requirements are challenged as infringements on economic liberty.