# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 6- 39 68

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Ndi ob a Nia ng ; Tam ek a St ig ers

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff s - Ap pe ll an ts

v.

Em il y Carr ol l, i n h er o ffi ci al cap aci ty as Exe cu ti ve Dire ct or of t he Mi ss ou ri B oa rd of Co sm et ol og y

an d B arb er Ex am in ers ; Way ne Kin dl e, In hi s o ffi ci al cap aci ty as a

m em be r of th e Mi ss ou ri B oa rd of C os m et ol og y an d B arb er Ex am in ers

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an ts - App el le es

Bet ty L eak e

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t

Ja ck ie Cro w, In h er o ffi ci al cap aci ty as a m em be r of th e Mi ss ou ri B oa rd of Co sm et ol og y

an d B arb er Ex am in ers ; J os ep h Ni ch ol so n, In hi s o ffi ci al cap aci ty as

a m em be r of th e Mi ss ou ri B oa rd of C os m et ol og y an d B arb er Ex am in ers ; Lea ta Pri ce-La nd , In h er o ffi ci al cap aci ty as a m em be r of th e Mi ss ou ri B oa rd of Co sm et ol og y

an d B arb er Ex am in ers ; Lo ri B os se rt, In he r of fic ia l ca pa ci ty as a

m em be r of th e Mi ss ou ri B oa rd of C os m et ol og y an d B arb er Ex am in ers ; Li nd a M. Bram bl et t, In he r of

fic ia l ca pa ci ty as a m em

be r of th e Mi ss ou ri B oa rd of Co sm et ol og y

an d B arb er Ex am in ers ; Leo D. Price , Sr., In h is off ic ia l ca pa ci ty as a

m em be r of th e Mi ss ou ri B oa rd of C os m et ol og y an d B arb er Ex am in ers ; Ch ris ti e L. Ro dr ig ue z, In he r of

fic ia l ca pa ci ty as a m em

be r of th e Mi ss ou ri B oa rd of Co sm et ol og y

an d B arb er Ex am in ers

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an ts - App el le es

----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----Mi ss ou ri Afr ic an Hair br ai de rs an d Th ei r Cu st om ers ; Pa ci fic Lega l Fo un da ti on ; Pu bl ic Ch oi ce Sc ho la rs ; Ca to Ins ti tu te ; Re as on Fo un da ti on ; In di vi du al Rig ht s Fo un da ti on ; Se na to r Ran d P au l; Gol dwa te r In st it ut e; Beac on Cen te r of Tenn es se e; The Sh ow- Me In st it ut e

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l

Amici on Beha lf

of App el la nt (s

)

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Eas te rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i - St . Lou is

__ __ __ __ __ __
Su bm it te d: Sep te m

be r 20 , 20 17 Fil ed : J an ua ry

11 , 20 18

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re COLLOTON, BENTO N, and KELLY , Cir cu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ BENTON, Circu it Ju dg e.

Mi ss ou ri st at ut es req ui re African -s tyle ha ir b rai de rs to be li cen se d as barb ers

o r c o s meto lo gi st s. Ndi ob a “ Jo ba ” Nian g an d Tam ek a St ig ers ch al le ng e th i s
req ui rem en t un de r th e Fo ur te en th Am en dm en t. The di st ric t co ur t gr an te d su m m ary 1 jud gm en t fo r th e St at e. Hav in g juri sd ic t i o n u n d er 28 U.S.C. § 12 91
, th is co ur t affi rm s.

Afri can -s tyle ha ir br ai de rs are req ui red to ha ve a li cen se to w o r k f or pa y in
Mi ss ou ri. §§ 32 8.0 20 , 32 9.0 30 RSMo 20 16

. Lice ns e can di da te s m us t (1 ) co m

pl et e

The Hon or ab le Jo hn M. Bo de nh au se n, Uni te d St at es Mag is tra te Ju dg e fo r th e 1 East ern Dis tri ct of M is so ur i, t o wh om th e cas e was refe rred for fin al di sp os it io n b y
co ns en t o f th e p art ie s p ur su an t t o 2 8 U.S.C. § 63 6( c).

-2

-a co st ly an d ti m e-i nt en si ve tra in in g co ur se —1 ,00 0- ho ur s fo r ba rb eri ng a nd

1,5 00 -h ou rs fo r ha ird res si ng , (2 ) di sc lo se cri m in al
, ci ti zen sh ip
, an d li m it ed ch arac te r ba ck gr ou nd
, an d (3 ) pa ss a li cen si ng ex am

. The se req ui rem en ts ap pl y to th os e who

“ cu t an d dr es s th e ha ir fo r th e ge ne ral pu bl ic ” or pe rfo rm “ arr a n gi ng , dr es si ng ,
cu rli ng , si ng ei ng , wav in g, pe rm an en t wav in g, cl ean si ng , cu tt in g, bl each in g, ti nt in g,

co lo rin g or si m il ar wor k up on th e ha ir of an y pe rs on by an y m ean s.” §§ 32 8.0 10 (1 ) (b arb ers ), 32 9.0 10 (5 )(a ) (co sm et ol og is ts ) RSMo 20 16

. Nian g an d St ig ers —t wo

un li c en se d, co m

pe ns at ed , Af

ric an -s tyle br ai de rs —b el ie ve Afri can -s tyle br ai di ng is di ffer en t fro m ba rb eri ng an d co sm et ol og y wit h di st in ct iv e te ch ni qu es no t co ve red in ei th er t rai ni ng co ur se or t he ex am

.

Thi s cou rt rev ie ws de no vo a gr an t of sum m ary jud gm en t. Tor ge rs on v. Ci ty of Ro ches te r , 64 3 F.3 d 10 31
, 10 42 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ) (en ba nc ). “ W he re a la w ne it he r im pl ic at es a fu nd am en ta l rig ht no r in vo lv es a su sp ect or qu as i-s us pe ct cl as si fic at io n, th e la w m

us t on ly b e r a t i o n a ll y rel at ed to a le gi ti m at e go ve rn m en t in te res t.”
Gal la gh er v. Ci ty of Cl

ay to n , 6 99 F

. 3 d 10 13 , 1 01 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ). Thi s rev ie w i s

“ a pa rad ig m of jud ic ia l res tra in t” whe re “ a st at ut or y cl as si fic at io n

. . . m us t be up he ld

ag ai ns t eq ua l pr ot ect io n ch al le ng e if th ere is an y reas on ab ly co nc ei va bl e st at e of fact s th at co ul d pr ov id e a rat io na l ba si s fo r th e cl as si fic at io n.” FCC v. Bea ch Co m m c’ns , In c. , 50 8 U.S. 30 7, 31 3- 14 (1 99 3) (ci ta ti on s om it te d)

. Co ur ts mu s t g iv e “ a st ro ng
pr es um pt io n of va li di ty” t o s t a t e l a w s

. Hel le r v. Doe
, 50 9 U.S. 31 2, 31 9 (1 99 3) (ci ta ti on s om it te d)

. Co ur ts m us t be “ ve ry rel uc ta nt ” to “ cl os el y sc ru ti ni ze le gi sl at iv e ch oi ce s as to whe th er, ho w, an d to wha t ex te nt th os e in te res ts sh ou ld be pu rs ue d.”
Unit ed St at es v. Wi nd

so r , 13 3 S. Ct

. 26 75
, 27 17 (2 01 3)
, qu ot in g Ci ty of Cl eb ur ne

v. Cl eb ur ne Livi ng Ct

r., In c. , 47 3 U.S. 43 2, 44 1- 42 (1 98 5)

. W he n a “ rat io na l ba si s”

p a s s e s eq ua l pr ot ect io n rev ie w, it “ al so sa ti sf ie s su bs ta nt iv e du e pr oc es s an al y s i s

. ”
Ex ecut iv e Ai r Ta

xi Co rp . v. Cit

y o f Bi sm ar ck , 51 8 F .3d 56 2, 5 69 (8t h C ir. 2 00 8)

.

The br ai de rs arg ue th at th e li cen se req ui rem en t is no t rat io na ll y rel at ed to an y le g i t i mat e go ve rn m en t in te res t. Acco rd in g to th e St at e, it s in te res ts are pr ot ect in g

-3

-co ns um ers an d en su rin g pu bl ic he al th an d sa fet y. Th e S ta te of fere d ev id en ce of he al th ris ks as so ci at ed w i t h b r a id in g su ch as “ ha ir lo ss , in fla m m at io n, an d sc al p in fect io n.” The St at e al so pr es en te d ev id en ce of sc al p co nd it io ns th at br ai de rs m us t

reco gn iz e as un su it ab le for bra id in g.

The di st ric t co ur t ad de d t w o p ur po se s: st im

ul at in g m or e ed uc at io n on Afri can -s tyle br ai di ng an d in cen ti vi zi ng br ai de rs to of fer m or e co m

pr eh en si ve ha ir

care

. The br ai de rs ob

ject th at th e di st ric t co ur t can no t of fer jus ti fi c a t i o n s. To th e

co nt rary, co ur ts are “ no t bo un d to co ns id er on ly th e st at ed pu rp os e of a le gi sl at ur e.”
Ka ns as Ci ty Tax i Ca b Dri ver s As s’ n, LLC v. Ci ty of

Ka ns as Ci ty , 74 2 F.3 d 80 7, 80 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 13 ). Th e b r a i d ers ha ve th e bu rd en to ne ga te no t on ly th e St at e’s jus ti fic at io n, bu t al so “ ev ery co nc ei va bl e ba si s whi ch m ig ht su pp or t it .” FCC , 50 8
U.S. at 3 15 (in te rn al qu ot at io ns an d c it at io ns om it te d)

.

As th e br ai de rs ack no wled ge , th e li c en se req ui rem en t fu rth ers le gi ti m at e
go ve rn m en t i nt eres ts in he al th an d s afet y

. Se e Ba rs ky v. Bd . o f Reg ent s o f U. , 34 7 U.S. 44 2, 44 9 (1 95 4) (as “ a vi ta l pa rt of a st at e’s po li ce po wer,” it m ay “ es ta bl is h an d

en fo rce st an da rd s of co nd uc t wit hi n it s b o r d ers rel at iv e to th e he al th of ev eryone th ere,” in cl ud in g “ th e reg ul at io n of all pro fes si on s co nc ern ed wit h h eal th .”). In th e

cas e s t he br ai de rs ci te , th e go ve rn m en t di d no t ha ve a le gi ti m at e in te res t. Se e Cr ai g m i l e s v. Gil es , 31 2 F.3 d 22 0, 22 4 (6 th Ci r. 20 02 ) (res tri ct in g cas ke t sa le s to fu ne ral d i r e ct or s— “ pr ot ect in g a di sc ret e in te res t gr ou p fro m eco no m ic

co m pe ti ti on ”—“ is no t a le gi ti m at e go ve rn m en ta l pu rp os e”); St

. Jo se ph Ab be y v. Ca st il le , 7 12 F.3 d 21 5, 22 2 (5 th Ci r. 20 13 ) (s am e); Ra ns chb ur g v. Toa n , 7 09 F.2 d
12 07
, 12 11 (8 th Ci r. 19 83 ) (fi nd in g “ in te nt to di sc riminat e is no t a le gi ti m at e st at e in te res t” ); Fo wl

er v. Unit ed St at es , 63 3 F.2 d 12 58
, 12 63 (8 th Ci r. 19 80 ) (“ no rat io na l in te res t” “ to su m

m ari ly di sc ha rg e wit ho ut cau se a m en ta ll y ret ard ed wor ke r, bu t no t

a n on -ret ard ed work er wh o p erfo rm s t he same j ob ”).

-4

-The br ai de rs a r g u e th at th e St at e’s m ean s do no t fit it s pu rp os es

. The y

em ph as iz e an ex cep ti on al lo win g un li cen se d br ai di ng “ wit ho ut th e us e of po te nt ia ll y ha rm fu l ch em ic al s

. . . whi le wor ki ng in co nju nc ti on wit h an y li cen se e fo r an y pu bl ic

am us em en t or en te rta in m en t ve nu e.” Se e § 31 6.2 65 RSMo 20 16

. The br ai de rs al so ci te a l e gi sl at iv e pr op os al by th e li cen si ng Bo ard fo r a sp eci al ba rb er/ co sm et ol og y li cen se for bra id ers

.

The li cen si ng req ui rem en t is rat io na ll y rel at ed to th e St at e’s in te res t in pu bl ic he al th an d sa fe ty no twi th st an di ng th e li cen si ng ex cep ti on an d th e le gi slati ve pr opos al

. The St at e is no t req ui red to “ ch oo se be twee n at ta ck in g ev ery as pe ct of a pr ob le m or

no t at ta ck in g th e pr ob le m at al l.” Unit ed Ho sp . v. Thom

ps on , 38 3 F.3 d 72 8, 73 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 04 ), qu ot in g Dan dr id ge v. Wi ll ia m s , 39 7 U.S. 47 1, 48 7 (1 97 0)

. “ [E]ven whe n th ere i s an im

pe rfec t fit be twee n m ean s an d en ds ” co ur ts are st il l co m pe ll ed un de r
rat io na l ba si s rev ie w “ to acce pt a le gi sl at ur e’s ge ne ral iz at io ns .” Hel le r , 50 9 U.S. at 32 1. The fit ne ed on ly be arg ua bl e an d rat io na l, wit h “ so m e fo ot in g in th e real it ie s of th e su bjec t ad dr es se d by th e le gi sl at io n.” Id

. “ The as su m

pt io ns un de rlyin g th es e
rat io na le s m ay be erro ne ou s, bu t th e ve ry fact th at th ey are a rg ua bl e is su ffi ci en t.”
FCC , 5 08 U.S. a t 32 0 (in te rn a l q uo ta ti on s an d ci ta ti on om it te d)

. “ It is en ou gh th at th e St at e’s act io n be rat io na ll y ba se d an d free fro m i n vi di ou s di sc riminat io n.”
Dan dr id ge , 39 7 U.S. at 48 7. Se e al so Schw ar e v . B d

. o f Ba r Ex am . of N.M.
, 35 3
U.S. 23 2, 23 9 (1 95 7) (a st at e vi ol at es th e Fo ur te en th Am en dm en t whe n it s “ act io n is in vi di ou sl y di sc riminat or y ”). Here, th e fit be twee n th e li cen si ng req ui rem en t an d th e St at e’s in te res t i s i m

pe rfec t, b ut no t u nc on st it ut io na ll y so

.

The br ai de rs as se rt th at th e M i s s o ur i li cen si ng reg im e is to o ov erb ro ad an d

un de r-i nc lu si ve to be rat io na ll y rel at ed to th e St at e’s in te res t. The y ci te th e St at e’s

co nc es si on th at on ly ab ou t 10 pe rcen t o f th e req ui red tra in in g cou rs es is rel ev an t to Afri can -s tyle br ai de rs , an d th at al m os t al l th e ex am s do no t te st on br ai di ng

. To th e

co nt rary, th e St at e “ m ay ex act a ne ed le ss , was te fu l req ui rem en t in m an y cas es , ” w hich

m ay “ no t be in ev ery res pe ct lo gi cal ly co ns is t e n t w i t h it s ai m s” bu t st il l be

-5

-“ co ns ti tu ti on al

. ” Wi ll ia m so n v. Lee Opt

ic al of Okl

a., In c. , 34 8 U.S. 48 3, 48 7- 88 (1 95 5)

. “ It is en ou gh ” th at th e St at e id en ti fy “ an ev i l a t h an d fo r co rrec ti on ” an d be li ev e reg ul at io n “ was a rat io na l way to co rrec t it .” Id

. at 48 8. “ A St at e can req ui re hi gh st an da rd s of qu al ifi cat io n” if it ha s “ a rat io na l co nn ect io n wi th th e ap pl ic an t’s fit ne ss or cap aci ty to pr act ic e.” Schw ar e , 35 3 U.S. at 23 9. The re m ay be ad va nt ag es

an d di sa dv an ta ge s to a li cen se req ui rem en t, “[b ]ut it is fo r th e le gi sl at ur e, no t th e

co ur ts , to ba la nc e” t he m

. Wi ll ia m so n , 34 8 U.S. at 48 7. 2

Fi na ll y , th e br ai de rs arg ue th at th e st at ut es vi ol at e eq ua l pr ot ect io n by tre at in g di ffe ren t pr of

es si on al s—

br ai de rs an d ba rb ers /c os m et ol og is ts —s im il arl y

. The

pr em is e of th is arg um en t is wro ng

. The br ai de rs de fin e th ei r pr of es si on as “ br ai di ng , lo ck in g, twi st in g, weav in g, co rn ro win g , o r o th erwi se ph y si cal ly m an ip ul at in g ha ir wit ho u t t h e u s e of ch em ic al s th at al te r th e ha ir’s ph y si cal ch arac te ris ti cs .” The br ai de rs ’ de fin it io n is rat io na l, bu t it is no t th e on ly rat io na l way to de fin e pr of es si on s th at in vo lv e ha ir dr e s s in g an d ot he r si m il ar se rv ic es

. And th ei r de fin it io n fal ls

sq ua rel y wit hi n th e sc op e o f t h e d e fin it io ns of ba rb eri ng an d co sm et ol og y th at th e Mi s s o u ri le gi sl at ur e ha s ch os en

. Barb eri ng is to “ dr es s th e ha ir fo r th e ge ne ral

pu bl ic .” § 32 8.0 10 (1 ) RSMo 20 16

. Co sme t o l og y is “ arra ng in g, dr es si ng

. . . or si m il ar wor k up on th e h a i r o f a n y pe rs on .” § 32 9.0 10 (5 )(a ) RSMo 20 16

. A le gi sl at ur e rat io na ll y co ul d co nc lu de t h a t Afri can -s tyle br ai di ng is no t a di ffer en t
pr of es si on th an ba rb eri ng or co sm et ol og y . “ W e se e n o c on st it ut io na l re as on why a

The br ai de rs ’ ci ta ti on s to Peep er v. Ca ll aw ay Ct y. Ambu la nc e Dis t. , 12 2 F.3 d 2 61 9 (8 th Ci r. 1 9 9 7 ) a r e n ot pe rs ua si ve be cau se it is a no n- eco no m ic cas e ab ou t

r e s t r ai nt s on Fi rs t Am en dm en t rig ht s. Se e Ka ns as Ci ty Tax i
, 74 2 F.3 d at 8 1 0 ( ack no wled gi ng no n- eco no m ic cas es are no t pe rs ua si ve in th e lo cal e c o n o mi c sp he re); Lee v. Dri

sc ol l
, 87 1 F.3 d 58 1, 58 5 (8 th Ci r. 20 1 7 ) ( i n t e r p r et in g Peep er as ad dr es si ng res tri ct io ns on th e Fi rs t Am en dm en t ri gh t t o a ss oc ia te ).

-6

-St at e m ay no t tre at al l who de al wit h [d res si ng ha ir] as m em be rs of a pr of

es si on .” Se e Wi ll ia m so n , 34 8 U.S. at 49 0. 3

The Mi ss ou ri st at ut es do no t v io la te th e Fo ur te en th Am en dm en t rig ht s of the Afri can -s tyle h ai r br ai de rs

.

* * * * * * *

The jud gm en t i s af

fir m ed

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

The br ai de rs rel y on ru li ng s by th ree di st ric t co ur ts

. Bec au se th es e de ci si on s 3 do no t ap pr op ria te ly de fer to le gi sl a t i v e c h oi ces , th ey are no t pe rs ua si ve

. Se e Br an tl ey v. Kunt

z , 98 F. Su pp

. 3d 88 4, 89 3 (W. D. Tex

. 20 15 ) ( To “s h o eh or n two

un li ke pr of

es si on s ‘int o a si ng le
, id en ti cal m ol d’” vi ol at es su bs ta nt iv e du e pr oc es s) ; Cl ay to n v. St

ei na ge l
, 88 5 F. Su pp

. 2d 12 12
, 12 15 (D. Utah 20 12 ) (fi nd in g a vi ol at io n of eq ua l pr ot ect io n whe re St at e “ irr at io na ll y sq ue ezed ‘two pr of es si on s in to a si ng le
, id en ti cal m ol d’”); Co rn wel l v. Ha m il to n , 80 F. Su pp

. 2d 11 01
, 11 03 (S.D. Cal

. 19 99 ) (s am e), qu es ti on ed in pa rt by Mer ri fie ld v. Loc ky er , 54 7 F.3 d 9 7 8
, 9 8 5 (9 th Ci r. 20 08 ) (d is tri ct co ur t’s reas on in g in C o r n wel l “ can no t su rv iv e eq ua l pr ot ect io n

an al y si s” ).

-7

-