Occupational licensing, purportedly an instrument to ensure public safety, often functions instead as a barrier to entry and a means to inflate prices. Administrations over the past half-century have agreed on the need to curb licensing creep, and the general idea has widespread support, but rolling back regulations while maintaining public confidence necessitates careful planning. 

To this end, Utah’s Sen. John Johnson (R-North Ogden) partnered with Libertas Institute to “right-size” licensing legislation via Johnson’s bill SB327. Although it has been tabled for this session, it advanced through committee (3-1) with suggestions for a prerequisite study prior to further action next year. 

Libertas has a strong record of helping craft successful deregulatory legislation, and this bill offers another good blueprint for states seeking ways to reverse their own occupational licensing spread.

Cut Red Tape Strategically

Because occupational licensing is so prevalent, affecting more than 1,000 professions and 30% of the workforce, consumers have grown reliant on its protection. Although other methods of safety assurance exist, legislators must acknowledge the current expectations of government-implemented guardrails.

In Johnson’s words, “licensing should be reserved for professions where there is a clear, demonstrable risk to public health or safety that cannot be addressed through less restrictive means.” SB327 therefore removes license obligations for just four carefully curated occupations: commercial interior designers, court reporters, deception detector practitioners, and music therapists. 

Consumer interior designers are already bound by building codes and engineer oversight; court reporters are subject to judicial rules; deception detector practitioners are limited in their legal reach and operate without licenses in even restrictive states; music therapists are not a threat to safety, and private certification easily addresses the desire for both quality control and uniformity across the industry.

By focusing on low-risk jobs, particularly ones that fall under other existing regulations, legislators preserve public security while efficiently cutting restrictions.

Compare Regulatory Reach 

In order to bolster arguments against a specific occupational license rule, the Institute of Justice (IJ) recommends that lawmakers check their license requirements against those of other states. Libertas Institute’s Jon England noted that many other regions did not require occupational licenses for the four professions Sen. Johnson chose for his bill, a fact that lent credibility to his proposal to eliminate these specific rules for his constituents. The National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) keeps an up-to-date list of occupational license requirements, and a glance immediately shows fields in which a state might be able to justify axing an unusual law. 

In addition, organizations such as the Archbridge Institute and the Mercatus Institute create their own databases and conduct comparisons of outcomes. These analyses enable reformers to demonstrate how the absence of specific rules has proven benign.

Emphasize Appropriate Alternatives

Libertas Institute’s argument stressed that low-risk deregulation does not prevent employers or consumers from demanding certifications of their chosen workers. Rather, “it shifts decision-making closer to the marketplace while preserving existing laws that protect against fraud, negligence, or misconduct.” 

Sen. Johnson also highlighted the potential of these voluntary private measures, pointing out that employers can implement their own requirements, and employees can make themselves more marketable by seeking certification. Removing the government mandates just puts employers, workers, and consumers back in control of their options. 

Communicate Effectively

Most importantly, the crafters of this bill addressed concerns of both voters and fellow legislators in detail. 

Due to their familiarity with the modern regulation-heavy system, members of the general public expect reassurance that their safety and welfare will not be compromised by deregulation. Other lawmakers need clear information, and they want to feel their input is acknowledged. 

This thoughtful approach to occupational licensing bills yields an increased likelihood of success.