Tag: National Employment Law Project

New occupational licensing laws in 2021

In the first five months of 2021, seven states and the District of Columbia enacted nine separate laws improving opportunities for people with a criminal record to obtain occupational licenses. This continues a four-year trend begun in 2017 that has seen 33 states and the District of Columbia enact 54 separate laws regulating consideration of criminal record in the licensing process. Our report on new legislation in 2020 noted that “[o]f all the criminal record reforms enacted during this modern reintegration reform era, no other approaches the regulation of occupational licensing agencies in terms of breadth, consistency, and likely efficacy.” Laws enacted during this four-year period have “transformed the licensing policy landscape across the Nation and opened opportunities in regulated professions for many thousands of people.” The only period of law reform that rivals the present one came during the early 1970s, when many of the laws now being revised and extended were first enacted. The effectiveness of advocacy efforts by the Institute for Justice and National Employment Law Project in influencing this trend cannot be overstated. So far during 2021, the U.S. jurisdiction to have enacted the most ambitious and comprehensive licensing scheme is the District of Columbia, and its new law (described in detail below) is one of the most progressive in the nation. New Jersey, New Mexico and Washington had not previously legislated in this area for many years, and all three extended and improved laws first enacted in the 1970s. Arizona, Georgia, Ohio, and Tennessee extended recently enacted laws, with Arizona legislating for the fourth time in this area in as many years! The nine new laws are described below, and have been added to the state profiles and 50-state charts of the Restoration of Rights Project. Comprehensive licensing scheme enacted by the District of Columbia Act A23-0561, signed by Mayor Muriel Bowser on January 15, 2021, imposed a detailed regulatory scheme on many occupational licenses issued by the District of Columbia, including health-related professions. The new law is one of the broadest and most comprehensive in the country in the judgment of both CCRC and the Institute for Justice. The 2021 law provides that no one may be denied a license based on conviction of a crime unless it is “directly related” to the occupation for which the license is sought. (Under prior law a license could be denied if a conviction “bears directly upon the fitness” of the person to be licensed.) References to “good moral character” in prior law were struck. The new law also prohibits a board from inquiring into or considering an applicant’s criminal conviction until after the applicant is found to be otherwise qualified. After such inquiry, it may not consider a conviction that has been sealed, expunged, vacated, or pardoned, a juvenile adjudication, or non-conviction information, or one that whose elements are not found by “clear and convincing evidence” to be “directly related” to the occupation. In making this determination, a board must consider specific factors relating to the circumstances of the offense, the individual’s other record, evidence of rehabilitation, and “the District’s interest in promoting employment opportunities for individuals with criminal records.” Before denying a license based on a conviction a board must notify the applicant about the reasons for denial and offer a hearing, describe the information that may be provided to demonstrate rehabilitation and fitness, give the applicant an opportunity to respond, and issue a final decision within 45 business days after it receives a response. The board must also provide information on legal resources along with a hearing notice. The 2021 law also establishes a pre-application petition process for individuals to determine their eligibility based on a criminal conviction, which must be completed within 90 days. (The law does not state whether an affirmative conclusion at this preliminary stage is binding on the board.) This law applies to licenses issued by D.C.’s Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs and Department Health, but not occupations regulated outside of these agencies, including attorneys, teachers, notaries, taxi drivers, funeral directors, boxers, commercial drivers, and insurance agents. The Mayor must submit a report to the Council by January 1, 2022, identifying the statutory and regulatory collateral consequences of criminal records and recommendations for their mitigation or elimination. And, by January 1 of each year, the Mayor must submit to the Council a report with data relating to each board regulating health-related and non-health-related occupations. Significant revisions of existing general licensing laws 1. Arizona As modified in 2021 by HB 2787 (the fourth licensing law in three years), standards for disqualification now provide that an agency may refuse licensure to a person based on their criminal record only if a conviction “specifically and directly relates to the duties and responsibilities of the occupation” (except for offenses involving moral turpitude defined to include serious and violent offenses) and “the person, based on the nature of the specific offense that the person was convicted of and the person’s current circumstances, including the passage of time since commission of the crime, “is more likely to reoffend by virtue of having” the license than not. The 2021 amendments also require that certain records may not be considered: non-conviction records, including record of participation in a diversion program; a conviction that was sealed, expunged or pardoned; a juvenile adjudication; and a non-violent misdemeanor. 2. Georgia Existing law allowed licensing boards to deny licensure where a person was on community supervision, without requiring the person’s crime to be “directly related” to the occupation for which licensure was sought. SB-114 added supervision status to list of dispositions for which direct relationship is required. The new law does not apply to those on supervision for a felony crime against a person, including battery or assault, or for a crime requiring sex offense registration. 3. New Jersey Until 2021, New Jersey’s 1970’s-era law governing licensure by dozens of state licensing boards (most health-related licenses, accountants, architects, engineers, cosmetology, and many others) provided that boards could deny or suspend licensure upon conviction “of a crime of involving moral turpitude or relating adversely” to the regulated occupation. P.L.2021, c.81 (S942), modified the standard for denial or suspension of licensure by these state licensing agencies to “a direct or substantial relationship to the activity regulated by the board or is of a nature such that certification, registration or licensure of the person would be inconsistent with the public’s health, safety, or welfare . . . .” 4. New Mexico The 1974 Criminal Record Employment Act in force prior to the 2021 amendments prohibited licensing boards from considering non-conviction records. As amended in 2021 by SB2, NM’s licensing agencies are precluded from considering convictions that have been sealed, dismissed, expunged or pardoned; juvenile adjudications; or convictions for a crime that “is not recent enough and sufficiently job-related to be predictive of performance in the position sought, given the position’s duties and responsibilities.” In addition, while “misdemeanors not involving moral turpitude” were omitted from the list of crimes that may never be considered, misdemeanors were also omitted from the provision allowing convictions to be considered if “directly related” to the license in question.  The revisions leave open the possibility that a misdemeanor could be grounds for denying licensure as a teacher or child care provider only if they involved drug trafficking or child abuse. The 2021 amendments also omitted an alternative basis for disqualification based on insufficient rehabilitation.  5. Ohio Ohio’s existing law required licensing agencies to list crimes that mandate disqualification. As further amended in 2021 by HB 263, boards must list convictions that “may” be disqualifying, and other convictions and non-conviction records may not be grounds for denying a license. Vague terms like “moral character” and “moral turpitude” may not be used. If a conviction is on the list of those “directly related,” the board must still consider certain standards linked to an applicant’s overall record that are linked to public safety and may not deny after a period of either five or 10 years depending on the offense. In the event of denial, a board must provide procedural protections including written reasons and a hearing. These new features supplement the provision for a binding preliminary determination enacted by Ohio in 2019. 6. Tennessee The 2018 Fresh Start Act was amended in 2021 by SB768 to provide specific criteria governing a licensing board in determining the fitness of a person for licensure based on their criminal record, including the relationship of the crime to the ability performs the duties of the occupation, and evidence of the person’s rehabilitation.  (The FSA already included a “direct relationship” standard.)  The 2021 Act also deleted “a rebuttable presumption that the prior conviction relates to the fitness of the applicant or licensee” if the conviction was for a Class A, Class B, or certain Class C felonies, or if the felony conviction required registration as a sex offender or animal abuser. 7. Washington A 2021 law provides that each licensing agency shall allow potential applicants for a license to receive a “preliminary determination” as to whether their criminal record will be disqualifying. See 2021, ch. 194 (HB1399). No fee may be charged. This determination must be made within two months, and if it is negative must be accompanied by a statement of reasons. Another provision of HB1399 states that a licensing agency “may disqualify an individual from obtaining a professional license, government certification, or state recognition if it determines the individual’s conviction is related to the occupation or profession unless the individual has requested and received a [Certificate of Restoration of Opportunity (CROP)].” See Section 3 of 2021, ch. 194 (HB 1399). It is not clear whether this law was intended to lower the “direct relationship” standard in § 9.96A.020(2). Another 2021 law gave new protections to employees of long-term care facilities, setting forth time limits beyond which certain theft and assault convictions will not be disqualifying. See 2021 Ch. 219 (HB1411). The CROP law was also amended to give protection to these employees. Read more

Organizations call on Congress to remove record-related barriers to small business relief

A bipartisan group of civil rights, advocacy, and business organizations, including CCRC, are calling on Congress to take immediate action to remove barriers based on arrest or conviction history for small business owners seeking COVID-19 federal relief.  This is an issue we have been covering in depth in recent posts.  This call to action—available in PDF and reprinted below—is issued by the following organizations (with additional sign-ons welcome; contact us here): American Civil Liberties Union Chicago Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Collateral Consequences Resource Center College & Community Fellowship Community Legal Services of Philadelphia #cut50 Drug Policy Alliance FreedomWorks Georgia Justice Project Interfaith Action for Human Rights Jewish Council for Public Affairs Justice & Accountability Center of Louisiana Justice Action Network Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights Main Street Alliance National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers National Employment Law Project Out For Justice Public Interest Law Center Reproductive Justice Inside Root & Rebound Safer Foundation Washington Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs Women Against Registry *Note: the letter was originally issued on April 10 and was last updated on April 17. April 17, 2020 Congress Must Act Now to Remove Barriers Based on Arrest or Conviction History for Small Business Owners Seeking COVID-19 Federal Relief We oppose the restrictions based on arrest or conviction placed by the Small Business Administration (SBA) on the two small business programs authorized and funded by the CARES Act (see Appendix). With one in three Americans having some sort of record, and people with records experiencing an unemployment rate five times higher than the average rate, these restrictions will have a significant and detrimental impact on individuals, families, and communities across the United States. The restrictions will have a particularly harsh effect on minority business owners and employees who are disproportionately affected by the criminal legal system as a result of institutional discrimination. Specifically, these restrictions are: • Unnecessary and confusing: There are no statutes requiring SBA to categorically disqualify individuals from its loan programs based on an arrest or conviction record; the authority to perform a background check does not translate into authority to exclude. SBA’s Interim Final Rule and policy guidance for the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) and Economic Injury Disaster Loans (EIDL) are far more exclusionary than its own existing regulations on record restrictions for small business loans, which only exclude those with active cases. The new restrictions constitute unnecessary overreach that interferes with the ability of small businesses to operate and pay their employees. The PPP interim rule and policy guidance, including its application form, are confusing and likely to have a chilling effect that will discourage many eligible applicants. The EIDL guidance and application form are similarly confusing and are likely to have the same effect. • Inconsistent with Congress’ intent: The intention of the emergency relief programs authorized by the CARES Act is to sustain small businesses that are trying to save the economy by keeping people employed. Eligibility requirements should be relaxed in these circumstances, not heightened as SBA proposes. SBA’s proposed new restrictions on eligibility for its loan programs, which already operate to exclude many people with a record, contravene the intent of the CARES Act, and are inconsistent with SBA’s more general mandate of encouraging entrepreneurship and expanding access to employment. A significant number of people with arrest or conviction history have established their own small businesses, since it is frequently difficult for them to secure employment with others. Moreover, these businesses also tend to be more willing to hire employees with a record. Driving them out of business will result in a severe impact on employment of a population that already is disadvantaged in the workplace. A large percentage of small businesses are owned by single owners or a limited number of co-owners, so that any disqualification affecting 20%+ equity owners will have a significant impact on small business owners generally. A policy that excludes from loan eligibility small businesses that are owned in whole or in part by people with arrest or conviction history is not only inconsistent with the CARES Act and the mandate of SBA’s own authorizing statutes, it also frustrates federal and state efforts to encourage the reintegration of individuals involved in the criminal legal system. • Overbroad and unfair: The PPP’s categorical bar based on certain arrest or conviction records means that there is no opportunity for an individual determination that considers factors such as rehabilitation, the circumstances of the conviction/disposition, or whether the nature of the underlying crime might adversely affect the ability to properly utilize the loan. The EIDL program restrictions go even further by asking about any involvement with the criminal legal system at any time, and potentially exclude most applicants with any arrest or conviction record from the EIDL (the SBA has not provided guidance on this). The PPP and EIDL restrictions extend to individuals that the criminal legal system has specifically determined should not be convicted of a crime, including those that participate in diversionary programs or obtain deferred adjudications – the very kinds of dispositions that are supposed to help protect people involved in the criminal legal system from harsh economic collateral consequences. The SBA’s requirement that people disclose sealed and expunged records circumvents protections in state law for these cleared records and is contrary to the intent and purpose of those laws. • Racially discriminatory: The SBA’s restrictions will have a disparate impact on minority business owners and employees, who are disproportionately affected by the criminal legal system as a result of institutional discrimination. People with a record are already subject to a myriad of disadvantages in seeking to reintegrate into society, notably in bank lending policies but also in housing, employment, licensing, education, voting, and other areas. Congress must act now to: Direct the SBA to eliminate new record restrictions introduced by the PPP interim rule and application form, and clarify the record-related eligibility policy for EIDL applicants. Direct the SBA to relax the record restrictions that are applied to Section 7(a) and 7(b) loans under existing rules and policies. Direct the SBA to ensure that the application forms for SBA financial assistance accurately reflect the eligibility requirements. As the COVID-19 crisis continues to devastate communities across this country, federal relief must be made equitably accessible to all who need it. Sincerely, American Civil Liberties Union Chicago Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Collateral Consequences Resource Center College & Community Fellowship Community Legal Services of Philadelphia #cut50 Drug Policy Alliance FreedomWorks Georgia Justice Project Interfaith Action for Human Rights Jewish Council for Public Affairs Justice & Accountability Center of Louisiana Justice Action Network Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights Main Street Alliance National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers National Employment Law Project Out For Justice Public Interest Law Center Reproductive Justice Inside Root & Rebound Safer Foundation Washington Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs Women Against Registry APPENDIX: PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS (Prepared by CCRC) Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) The CARES Act authorizes the PPP, which provides small business loans under the SBA’s 7(a) loan program, with provisions for expanded eligibility, allowable uses, and forgiveness.[i] Barriers based on arrest or conviction for 7(a) loans in general: By statute: The SBA “may verify the applicant’s criminal background, or lack thereof,” prior to approval, including through an FBI background check.[ii] By regulation: “Businesses with an Associate who is incarcerated, on probation, on parole, or has been indicted for a felony or a crime of moral turpitude” are ineligible.[iii] By policy statement: SBA interprets its regulation to also make ineligible an Associate under deferred prosecution, conditional discharge, order of protection, or a sex offender registry, or currently facing any charges in any jurisdiction.[iv] SBA also states that various principals of a business “must be of good character,” which is determined through a character evaluation, requiring disclosure of any: 1) current charges; 2) arrests in the past 6 months; and 3) time the person has been convicted, pled guilty or no contest, or been placed on pretrial diversion or any form of parole or probation—other than for a minor vehicle violation. Expunged and sealed records must be disclosed, with no exceptions. A person will generally be approved if they provide documentation that they have satisfied all sentencing conditions (presumably including payment of costs and restitution) and do not have a felony conviction, misdemeanor conviction for a crime against a minor, recent misdemeanor conviction, or recent charges. Otherwise, they are subject to a fingerprint-based FBI background check and an opaque individual determination by the SBA.[v] Barriers based on arrest or conviction specific to PPP loans: By statute: The CARES Act does not specifically authorize much less require barriers based on arrest or conviction for PPP loans. To be consistent with its purposes, the CARES Act should at the least be read to say that new barriers based on arrest or conviction should not be applied to PPP assistance.[vi] By regulation: SBA Interim Final Rule (Apr. 15): “You are ineligible for a PPP loan if….iii. An owner of 20 percent or more of the equity of the applicant is incarcerated, on probation, on parole; presently subject to an indictment, criminal information, arraignment, or other means by which formal criminal charges are brought in any jurisdiction; or has been convicted of a felony within the last five years.” By application form: Borrower Application (Apr. 3): asks two questions; a “yes” to either is disqualifying: 1) “Is the Applicant (if an individual) or any individual owning 20% or more of the equity of the Applicant subject to an indictment, criminal information, arraignment, or other means by which formal criminal charges are brought in any jurisdiction, or presently incarcerated, or on probation or parole?” 2) “Within the last 5 years, for any felony, has the Applicant (if an individual) or any owner of the Applicant 1) been convicted; 2) pleaded guilty; 3) pleaded nolo contendere; 4) been placed on pretrial diversion; or 5) been placed on any form of parole or probation (including probation before judgment)?” (Note: this is far broader than the Interim Final Rule: the second question includes “any owner” and covers dispositions other than conviction.) Economic Injury Disaster Loans (EIDL) EIDL loans are authorized under the SBA’s existing 7(b) disaster loan program. The Coronavirus Preparedness and Response Supplemental Appropriations Act (Phase 1) appropriated additional funds and deemed coronavirus a disaster.[vii] Pursuant to the CARES Act, SBA is also allowing business owners in all states, D.C., and territories to apply for an EIDL advance of up to $10,000, which “will be made available within days of a successful application, and this loan advance will not have to be repaid.”[viii] Barriers based on arrest or conviction for EIDL: By statute and regulation: Individuals convicted during the past year of a felony during and in connection with a riot or civil disorder or other declared disaster are ineligible.[ix] By policy statement: The SBA policy statement provides: “It is not in the public interest…to extend financial assistance to persons who are not of good character. If any adverse information develops concerning the character or background of a disaster loan applicant or principal owner [on forms], SBA must make a determination as to the applicant’s character before a loan can be approved.”[x]  Thus, the SBA will not approve a loan “if the applicant or principal owner is presently on parole or probation following conviction of a serious criminal offense. However, [it] will consider approving an application submitted by partnerships, corporations, and LLEs, where the apparent bar to eligibility was committed independently of any official act for the business and the individual will divest all direct and indirect interest in the business.” By application form: Forms, including the COVID-19 EIDL portal, include the usual EIDL three-part question, which requires a “yes” or “no” to the entire question: “a. Are you presently subject to an indictment, criminal information, arraignment, or other means by which formal criminal charges are brought in any jurisdiction? b. Have you been arrested in the past six months for any criminal offense? c. For any criminal offense – other than a minor vehicle violation – have you ever been convicted, plead guilty, plead nolo contendere, been placed on pretrial diversion, or been placed on any form of parole or probation (including probation before judgment)?” Under pre-existing policy, if this question is answered “yes,” the SBA requires the applicant to provide a Form 912 with an explanation of the offense(s), and in some cases a fingerprint sample, before the SBA will make a character determination.[xi] The SBA has not provided guidance on whether applicants who answer “yes” to this question can obtain an EIDL advance, or whether they will be subject to the usual character evaluation. [i] CARES Act (H.R. 748), secs. 1102-1105; 15 U.S.C. 636(a). [ii] 15 U.S.C. 636(a)(1)(B). [iii] 13 C.F.R. § 120.110(n). An “Associate” includes officers, directors, owners of 20% or more of the equity, key employees, and other specified entities. See 13 C.F.R. § 120.10. [iv] See SBA Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) 50 10 5(K)(B)(2)(III)(A)(13) (eff. April 1, 2019). [v] The good character requirement applies to every proprietor, general partner, officer, director, managing member of an LLC, owner of 20% or more of the equity, trustor, or person who runs day-to-day operations.” See id. [vi] See CARES Act (H.R. 748), sec. 1102. [vii] Coronavirus Preparedness and Response Supplemental Appropriations Act (H.R. 6074), tit. 2. [viii] CARES Act (H.R. 748), sec. 1110; https://www.sba.gov/funding-programs/loans/coronavirus-relief-options/economic-injury-disaster-loan-emergency-advance. [ix] See P. L. 90 448, 1106(e), HUD Act of l968, and 13 CFR §§ 123.301, 123.101.   [x] SBA SOP 50 30 9(3.6) (effective May 31, 2018) at p. 32. [xi] Id. Read more

Will restrictions on banking jobs be relaxed for people with a record?

More than two dozen organizations dedicated to improving employment opportunities for people with a criminal record have written to the FDIC urging that it give regulated financial institutions greater latitude to hire qualified people without having to ask the FDIC’s permission.  The occasion is the FDIC’s proposal to reduce to a formal rule its longstanding policy on employment of convicted individuals by banks, a proposal that suggests the FDIC may be open to giving banks more hiring autonomy by relaxing several controversial provisions.  For 20 years, the FDIC has kept a tight grip on banks, requiring them to obtain a waiver before they may hire anyone with a record even in an entry-level non-professional position.  In operation, this policy has been an effective bar to bank employment for most people with a conviction record (and even for some who have never been convicted). The letter, organized by the National Employment Law Project and the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, points out that FDIC’s exclusionary policy is not required by its enabling statute, and urges the agency to bring its policy on hiring waivers into line with national efforts to further reintegration, in several different ways, some of which are discussed below.  The letter cites the bipartisan federal Fair Chance Act and corresponding reforms in states across the country (as reported by CCRC), as well as many letters from bank industry leaders urging the FDIC to relax its rigid policy that has frustrated efforts to diversify the financial sector’s work force. The comment below provides some background for the FDIC’s proposal, and comments on where some relaxation of its present policy is likely.  It concludes with a note about the generally confusing and inconsistent treatment of state relief mechanisms like expungement and pardon in federal laws and regulations, suggesting that this is an area sorely in need of further study and proposals for reform. For background, Section 19 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act prohibits people who have been convicted of a “crime of dishonesty, breach of trust, or money laundering” or other specified financial crimes from working in a bank or other “insured depository institution” without the “prior written consent” of the FDIC.  12 U.S.C. § 1829(a).  The requirement of FDIC approval extends not only to convicted persons, but also to any person who has “agreed to enter into a pretrial diversion or similar program in connection with the prosecution for such offense.”  § 1829(a)(1)(A)(i). Since the 1990’s, the FDIC has by policy defined very broadly the category of crimes requiring it to issue a waiver (even anomalously including illegal sale of drugs in this category).  It has extended its waiver requirement to pre-trial diversion or similar diversionary dispositions (as the statute itself appears to require), as well as to convictions that have been pardoned, set-aside, or sealed.  It has also narrowly defined the category of “de minimis” offenses that it excepts from the waiver requirement, and even as to these offenses it requires a five-year waiting period before a waiver may be sought.  The FDIC also excepts convictions that have been “completely expunged,” but its definition of offenses falling into this category (that they may not be used by the state for any purpose, including even in subsequent prosecutions) excludes many if not most state expungements. Moreover, the FDIC has not made it easy to obtain a waiver, effectively limiting waivers to situations where a bank itself is willing to go to bat for a potential employee.  In the past 12 years, only about 1200 waiver applications have even been filed, and only about half of these were approved.  While any individual interested in working for a bank may in theory apply to the FDIC for a waiver, almost the only waivers granted are to applicants who are sponsored by a bank.  In practice, this means that a recent MBA recipient being recruited as a loan officer trainee in a bank’s mortgage department may succeed in getting a waiver, but a person seeking employment as a teller or receptionist may not.  Avoiding the need to secure a waiver from a distant federal bureaucracy in order to qualify for bank employment is therefore of paramount importance to anyone interested in an entry-level professional or non-professional bank job, because they cannot ordinarily count on the bank’s running interference for them with the FDIC. Therefore, the organizations’ letter urges the FDIC to narrow the category of criminal records that preclude bank employment without FDIC permission, and to streamline the waiver process both for banks and individuals, in several ways.  Notably, the letter addresses at length two issues on which the FDIC specifically sought comment.  First, as to whether the agency should impose time limits for considering various types of convictions, the letter recommends excluding from the waiver requirement cases where  at least 7 years have elapsed since conviction, or 5 years since release from incarceration—and sooner for offenses committed at age 21 or younger.  Second, as to whether the agency should modify its “complete expungement” policy, the letter recommends that the agency recognize all expungements and sealings, as well as convictions that have been set aside or dismissed.  The letter also urges the FDIC to more narrowly define “dishonesty” offenses requiring a waiver, expand the exception for drug offenses, and limit consideration of diversionary dispositions, among other recommendations. Over the years since the FDIC originally issued its policy in 1998, it has repeatedly declined to make any significant changes.  The history of the FDIC’s successive revisions to the policy, which is rehearsed in its present proposal, shows the agency stubbornly resisting calls from the banking industry itself for relaxation of its employment bars and waiver rules.  For example, in 2018 the FDIC declined to abandon the five-year waiting period for those convicted of de minimis crimes (itself a vanishingly small category), and refused to relax its grip on pretrial diversionary dispositions specifically intended by states to avoid collateral consequences.  The FDIC has also turned a deaf ear to calls to incorporate relief mechanisms provided by state law, and has defined both of its exceptions (for de minimis crimes and expunged convictions) in such a narrow way that very few can take advantage of them. One may hope that this time will be different, and that the range of convictions requiring a waiver will be significantly reduced.  Expansion of the de minimis category and incorporation of a “look-back” or “wash-out” period for older convictions seem the two most likely changes, though the inclusion of drug sales in the category of crimes of dishonesty also seems ripe for reconsideration.  While the FDIC may be unwilling to back away from its policy on diversionary dispositions since the statute itself appears to specifically cover them, or expand the narrow definition of expungement that is subscribed to by so many other federal agencies, the letter helpfully points out why Congress should amend these aspects of the law, which so clearly run against the present tide of bipartisan reforms. NOTE:  The FDIC’s definition of “complete expungement,” discussed above, so completely ignores the actual effect of state record relief laws that it has encouraged us to take a look at the way different federal laws and regulations incorporate state relief mechanisms like expungement and pardon.  This has not been a subject of close examination by Congress for more than thirty years, since its 1986 amendment of the Federal Firearms Act to recognize state relief in the wake of the Supreme Court’s 1983 decision in Dickerson v. New Banner Institute, 460 U.S. 103 (1983), which upheld a federal “felon in possession” conviction based on a guilty plea that had been expunged under Iowa law.  Despite Congress’ specific intent to give effect to state relief in firearms prosecutions (or perhaps because of it), since then federal agencies have gone their separate ways in recognizing state relief, with some giving effect to pardon but not expungement (HUD, ICE), some going in the opposite direction (U.S. Sentencing Commission, FDIC), and some recognizing both (TSA).  Even where federal agencies recognize expungement, they define it so narrowly that most state laws would not qualify. We believe that the confusing and inconsistent approach by federal agencies to state record relief merits a closer analysis, which we plan to undertake in the future, if only to clarify terminology.  In the meantime, we have revised the Federal profile in the Restoration of Rights Project to include a detailed discussion of the various ways that federal law recognizes state relief, from firearms dispossession to deportation. Read more