Category: Types of Consequences

Pennsylvania expands access to 255 licensed occupations for people with a record

On July 1, Pennsylvania Governor Tom Wolf signed into law an expansive new regulation of the state’s occupational licensing process, giving the agencies that control access to 255 occupations detailed new standards for considering criminal records in the licensing process.  Pennsylvania has not addressed these issues on a state-wide basis since the 1970’s, and with proper implementation the new law promises a path to the middle class for skilled individuals whose career prospects might otherwise be limited.

While Pennsylvania’s law is by far the most ambitious one of its kind passed this year, five other states have also passed laws since the beginning of 2020 regulating consideration of criminal record in occupational licensing.  Two were states that previously had no general law governing this issue (Idaho and Missouri) and three were states that extended laws passed in recent years (Iowa, Utah and West Virginia).

Pennsylvania’s new law is analyzed in detail below.  The provisions of the other five states’ new licensing laws are summarized briefly at the end of the post, and the laws of all six states are written up in greater detail in the relevant state profiles in the Restoration of Rights Project.

Read more

SBA throws in the towel and Congress extends the PPP deadline

After Congress authorized hundreds of billions of dollars for small business relief during COVID-19, the Small Business Administration (SBA) by rule and by policy imposed restrictions on applicants with an arrest or conviction history.  As we have documented, these SBA barriers, neither required nor contemplated by Congress, unlawfully impeded access to the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) and the Economic Injury Disaster Loan (EIDL) program.  Over many weeks, the Administration stubbornly defended those barriers.  Finally, facing a bipartisan chorus of criticism including from members of Congress, and lawsuits in federal court, the Administration threw in the towel.

On June 12, shortly after the SBA eased some of the PPP restrictions, lawsuits were filed in federal court by several Maryland business owners challenging those restrictions.  On June 24, SBA further relaxed its PPP barriers, this time in a far more significant fashion, notably making the business owners who had sued the SBA eligible.  But the latest policy change came with less a week before the June 30 application deadline.

Then, just one day before the deadline, a federal judge ruled that the SBA’s criminal history restrictions on PPP, except for the June 24 policy change, were likely unlawful.  The court extended the deadline to apply, but only for the small business owners who had sued.

In a dramatic finale, Congress extended the PPP application deadline to August 8 for everyone.  This extension, signed into law on July 4, gives business owners made eligible under the June 24 policy a meaningful opportunity to learn about their eligibility and complete the application process.  A good outcome all around, thanks to the many people who refused to take no for an answer!

Read more

Collected resources on record restrictions for small business relief

*NEW POST (Jan. 21, 2021): Applying for SBA COVID-19 relief with a criminal record in 2021

On this page, we collected a variety of materials on the restrictions related to arrest or conviction imposed by the Small Business Administration (SBA) on small business owners seeking relief under the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) and Economic Injury Disaster Loan (EIDL) program during 2020. Included are proposed reform legislation, lawsuits filed, academic studies, letters from legislators and major organizations, articles by us and by others, and official documents related to this issue. (For more current information, see: Applying for SBA COVID-19 relief with a criminal record in 2021.)

After the first COVID-19 relief bill in March 2020, the CARES Act, the SBA imposed broad criminal history restrictions on applicants. Following the introduction of a bipartisan Senate bill, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin agreed on June 10, 2020, to revise the PPP restrictions.  On June 12, 2020, SBA issued new regulations and applications forms to ease some of the barriers in the PPP.  On June 24, 2020, the SBA further relaxed its criminal history barriers for PPP assistance, this time in a far more significant fashion, and in a manner that makes the business owners who are suing the SBA now eligible to apply.  The new regulation and application form came less a week before the June 30, 2020 deadline to apply for relief.

Meanwhile, two lawsuits were filed against the SBA in federal court in Maryland, asserting that the SBA’s criminal history restrictions are beyond the agency’s authority, arbitrary and capricious, and contrary to the text of the CARES Act; the second lawsuit also asserts that the restrictions fall hardest on minority businesses due to the impact of over-criminalization on communities of color.  On June 29, 2020, a federal judge ruled that the SBA’s criminal history restrictions on PPP, except for the June 24 policy change, were likely unlawful.  The court extended the deadline to apply, but only for the small business owners who had sued.

In a dramatic finale, Congress extended the PPP application deadline to August 8, 2020 for everyone.  This extension, signed into law on July 4, gave business owners made eligible under the June 24, 2020 policy a meaningful opportunity to learn about their eligibility and complete the application process.

Read more

Report card on licensing laws finds progress, but still a way to go

The Institute for Justice, a leader in advocacy for reforming occupational licensing laws, has just issued a major new report grading the states on the opportunities they give to people with a criminal record.  The press release and links are below.  We are not at all surprised that Indiana got the best grade—or that so many states “tied for dead last.” Coincidentally, the legislatures in Iowa, Missouri, and Pennsylvania have in recent days sent broad new occupational licensing reform measures to their governors’ desks, so at least three states seem poised to climb out of IJ’s basement.    

Stay tuned for an update of our own survey of employment and licensing laws nationwide, which will be part of the revised Forgiving and Forgetting report that we expect to issue in a few weeks.  In the meantime, many congratulations to IJ for its pioneering law reform work on behalf of people with a record.

IJ press release:

Barred from Working: People with Criminal Records Are Unfairly Denied Licenses to Work

New Nationwide Report Offers the Most Comprehensive Look at the Occupational Licensing Barriers Facing Ex-Offenders

Arlington, Va.—Even as states debate opening the economy back up, millions of Americans with criminal records are still locked out of the job market. Today, nearly one in five workers needs a license to work, while one in three Americans has a criminal record of some kind.

Providing the most in-depth and up-to-date look at this intersection between occupational licensing and the criminal-justice system, a new report from the Institute for Justice (IJ), Barred from Working, analyzes and grades the legal protections offered to ex-offenders who apply for licenses to work.

Many state laws fail to make the grade: just nine states received a B- or better. Indiana ranked as the best state in the nation, earning the report’s only A grade. Meanwhile, six states—Alabama, Alaska, Nevada, Rhode Island, South Dakota, and Vermont—all tied for dead last due to their utter lack of protections for former felons seeking licenses.

“An honest living is one of the best ways to prevent re-offending. But strict occupational licensing requirements make it harder for ex-offenders to find work,” said IJ Legislative Analyst Nick Sibilla, who authored the report. “Undoubtedly, some license restrictions make sense: No one wants child molesters working in daycare centers or school bus drivers with DUIs. But as this report shows, many licensing barriers have little basis in common sense or public safety and unfairly deny a fresh start to countless Americans.”

Read more

SBA rolls back many criminal history barriers just before deadline

*UPDATE (7/7/20):  “SBA throws in the towel and Congress extends the PPP deadline”

After Congress authorized hundreds of billions of dollars for small business relief during COVID-19, the Small Business Administration (SBA) imposed restrictions on applicants with an arrest or conviction history.  We have written much in recent weeks about how these barriers, neither required nor contemplated by Congress, impede access to the two major stimulus relief programs for small businesses, nonprofits, and independent contractors: the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) and the Economic Injury Disaster Loan (EIDL) program.

On June 12, the SBA eased some of the restrictions for PPP, just as two lawsuits were filed in federal court challenging the restrictions.  Today, SBA further relaxed its criminal history barriers for PPP assistance, this time in a far more significant fashion, and in a manner that makes the business owners who are suing the SBA now eligible to apply.  However, the new regulation and application form come less a week before the June 30 deadline to apply for relief.

The new policies include two important changes to eligibility.  First, being on parole or probation is no longer disqualifying, unless the parole or probation “commenced” within the last year for any felony, or with the last 5 years “for any felony involving fraud, bribery, embezzlement, or a false statement in a loan application or an application for federal financial assistance.”  Second, pending misdemeanor charges are no longer disqualifying; only pending felony charges are. (The new rule and application form are linked below.)

Read more

IRS blocks stimulus tax relief to people in prison; court orders relief

*Update (10/19/20): Per federal court orders, incarcerated individuals may now apply for stimulus payments.  The current deadline to apply is November 4, 2020.  More information is available at this link.

In response to the public health and economic challenges of COVID-19, Congress in March 2020 enacted the CARES Act.  We have written at length about the Small Business Administration’s unfortunate and unauthorized disqualification of small business owners from Paycheck Protection and disaster relief because of their criminal record.  It turns out that the SBA is not the only federal agency discriminating against people with a record in carrying out the CARES Act.  The IRS has also gotten into the act, in what may be an even more lawless fashion.

The CARES Act authorizes stimulus payments in the form of a tax rebate of $1200 per adult and $500 per child for households with incomes below a certain level.  See P.L. 116-136, sec. 2201.  Specific categories of individuals are excluded from receiving these payments (e.g., any “nonresident alien individual” or an estate or trust), but nothing in the CARES Act excludes people who happen to be in prison or jail or any other detention facility.  Likewise, no federal regulation excludes incarcerated individuals from receiving CARES Act tax rebate payments.

That didn’t stop the IRS from taking matters into its own hands, just as it didn’t stop the SBA.

Read more

SBA eases some criminal history barriers and faces litigation

*UPDATE (7/7/20):  “SBA throws in the towel and Congress extends the PPP deadline”

After Congress authorized hundreds of billions of dollars for small business relief during COVID-19, the Small Business Administration (SBA) imposed restrictions on applicants with an arrest or conviction history.  We have written much in recent weeks about how these barriers, neither required nor contemplated by Congress, impede access to the two major relief programs for small businesses, nonprofits, and independent contractors: the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) and the Economic Injury Disaster Loan (EIDL) program.

Following the introduction of a bipartisan Senate bill to roll back most of these barriers, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin agreed on June 10 to revise the PPP restrictions.  On Friday, June 12, SBA issued new regulations and application forms to ease some of the barriers in the PPP.  The changes are more limited than the proposed Senate bill, and continue to reflect an SBA overreach in its approach to loan applicants with criminal records, at a time when we are nearing the June 30 closing date to apply for this much-needed assistance.

Meanwhile, two lawsuits have been filed against the SBA in federal court in Maryland, asserting that the SBA’s criminal history restrictions are beyond the agency’s authority, arbitrary and capricious, and contrary to the text of the CARES Act.  The first lawsuit, filed on June 10, is brought by The New Civil Liberties Alliance on behalf of a corner store in Hagerstown, Maryland, which was denied PPP assistance based on its owner’s 2004 felony conviction, for which he is on parole.  The second lawsuit, filed on June 16 by the ACLU, Public Interest Law Center, and Washington Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs, also asserts that the restrictions fall hardest on minority businesses due to the impact of over-criminalization on communities of color.  The suit is on behalf of the owner of an electrical contracting business on parole for a 2012 drug conviction, a graphic designer with pending misdemeanor charges, and a nonprofit that provides job and entrepreneurial training for currently and formerly incarcerated individuals.  None of the business owner plaintiffs in these two lawsuits would be eligible under the SBA’s new policies, which we analyze below.  (Further information on the lawsuits is also below.)

Read more

Florida felony disenfranchisement law held unconstitutional

This evening the district court issued its opinion in Jones v. DeSantis finding, as expected, that Florida’s system for restoring voting rights to those convicted of a felony is unconstitutional. The opinion is at this link, and its summary by the court is below. Additional details of the decision and the court’s order are reported in this article from the New York Times, and we will report further on the case, including next steps, in a few days.

The State of Florida has adopted a system under which nearly a million otherwise-eligible citizens will be allowed to vote only if they pay an amount of money. Most of the citizens lack the financial resources to make the required payment. Many do not know, and some will not be able to find out, how much they must pay. For most, the required payment will consist only of charges the State imposed to fund government operations—taxes in substance though not in name.

The State is on pace to complete its initial screening of the citizens by 2026, or perhaps later, and only then will have an initial opinion about which citizens must pay, and how much they must pay, to be allowed to vote. In the meantime, year after year, federal and state elections will pass. The uncertainty will cause some citizens who are eligible to vote, even on the State’s own view of the law, not to vote, lest they risk criminal prosecution.

This pay-to-vote system would be universally decried as unconstitutional but for one thing: each citizen at issue was convicted, at some point in the past, of a felony offense. A state may disenfranchise felons and impose conditions on their reenfranchisement. But the conditions must pass constitutional scrutiny. Whatever might be said of a rationally constructed system, this one falls short in substantial respects.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has already ruled, in affirming a preliminary injunction in this very case, that the State cannot condition voting on payment of an amount a person is genuinely unable to pay. See Jones v. Governor of Fla., 950 F.3d 795 (11th Cir. 2020). Now, after a full trial on the merits, the plaintiffs’ evidence has grown stronger. This order holds that the State can condition voting on payment of fines and restitution that a person is able to pay but cannot condition voting on payment of amounts a person is unable to pay or on payment of taxes, even those labeled fees or costs. This order puts in place administrative procedures that comport with the Constitution and are less burdensome, on both the State and the citizens, than those the State is currently using to administer the unconstitutional pay-to-vote system.

 

New efforts to channel federal relief to small business owners with a record

*UPDATE (7/7/20):  “SBA throws in the towel and Congress extends the PPP deadline”

After Congress authorized hundreds of billions of dollars in funds for small business relief during COVID-19, the Small Business Administration (SBA) imposed restrictions on applicants with an arrest or conviction history.  These barriers, neither required nor contemplated by Congress, impede access to the two major relief programs for small businesses, nonprofits, and independent contractors during the COVID-19 crisis.  The two programs are the newly created Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) and the ramped-up Economic Injury Disaster Loan (EIDL) program.

Three developments within the past week signal major pushback against or the possible reversal of at least some of these burdensome restrictions, which unfairly deny relief to worthy applicants.

First, at least 65 organizations submitted five public comments in opposition to the SBA’s criminal history restrictions for PPP relief.  Our organization joined 25 other groups in submitting a comment asking the SBA to rescind or modify the regulation on legal and policy grounds, citing recent court decisions that suggest the SBA may lack authority to impose record-based disqualifications at all.

These comments are the most recent expression of what has become a wave of bipartisan opposition to the SBA’s exclusionary policies, and growing coverage of the issues in the press.  We have been collecting relevant documents on our small business relief resource page.

Second, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin signaled in a recent conversation with key Senators that he may be open to easing restrictions on PPP applicants with felony records from the last five years.

Third, the HEROES Act, passed by the House on Friday, includes provisions that would significantly constrain the SBA’s authority to deny applicants based on a record of arrest or conviction in both the PPP and EIDL programs.  If enacted into law, these provisions would mark a turning point in how federal law deals with discrimination based on criminal record.

We discuss these developments in detail after the jump.  Read more

Is SBA denying disaster relief based only on an arrest?

*UPDATE (7/7/20):  “SBA throws in the towel and Congress extends the PPP deadline”

In response to COVID-19, Congress created the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) and expanded the Economic Injury Disaster Loan (EIDL) program, appropriating hundreds of billions of dollars across these programs to assist small businesses affected by the pandemic and economic crisis.  As we have been pointing out in this space over the past five weeks, the Small Business Administration (SBA), which administers both programs, has imposed broad restrictions on access to relief based on arrest or conviction history, restrictions that were neither required nor contemplated by Congress.[1]

Until now, attention has been focused on small business owners unfairly denied PPP relief based on their record.  Members of Congress and major organizations have written in opposition to PPP regulations and policies that impose barriers based on a record, and dozens of media outlets have covered the issue.  But the EIDL disaster relief program has largely gone under the radar, in part because the SBA has not published guidance about how it is treating EIDL applicants with a record.

In a new development, documents posted anonymously on Reddit last week, and published by Law360 on May 3, purport to be internal SBA guidance for reviewing EIDL applications.  The documents instruct agency staff to deny relief to applicants if they have ever been arrested, unless the arrest was for a misdemeanor and occurred more than 10 years ago.  These leaked documents, also covered in detail by Entrepreneur this morning, would suggest that behind the scenes the SBA is imposing even greater record-related restrictions on COVID-19-related disaster relief than on PPP loans.

Upon review, we believe that this new information about the record-related standards being applied by the SBA to EIDL loans is likely correct.  We have heard from readers who were denied EIDL relief after SBA staff asked them questions over email about their arrest history, questions that correspond exactly to those in the leaked documents.  An SBA spokesperson, given an opportunity to correct the record if it needed correcting, declined to confirm or deny the information.

We have never see a government program in the United States with such broad and arbitrary restrictions based on criminal history.  The purported EIDL guidance is devoid of nuance: it instructs staff to deny relief based on arrest history regardless of offense and regardless of whether the arrest resulted in prosecution, much less conviction.  The look-back period is limitless for felony arrests and a full decade for misdemeanor arrests.  The guidance inevitably produces unwarranted disparities: a person with a decades-old felony arrest that was never charged, or whose arrest resulted in an acquittal, is treated more severely than someone with a more recent misdemeanor conviction.  Finally, the guidance cannot be squared with existing published SBA policies, as discussed below.

In normal times, a sweeping and secretive restriction on disaster relief would be problematic.  In this global public health and economic crisis, it is inexcusable.

Read more

1 … 5 6 7 8 9 … 30