Skip to main content

The context you need, when you need it

When news breaks, you need to understand what actually matters — and what to do about it. At Vox, our mission to help you make sense of the world has never been more vital. But we can’t do it on our own.

We rely on readers like you to fund our journalism. Will you support our work and become a Vox Member today?

Join now

Tour guide regulations violate the First Amendment, court says

If you’re a DC resident who wants to make a living showing tourists around the city, DC law requires you to pay a $200 fee and pass a 100-question test about the geography and history of DC. Or at least it did until Friday, when a DC federal appeals court ruled that the requirements violated the First Amendment.

In a scathing opinion, the DC Circuit Appeals Court ruled that the district hadn’t provided any evidence that the regulations served a legitimate government interest. And because the regulation limited speech — being a tour guide means talking, after all — it didn’t pass muster under the First Amendment.

“How does the memorization of addresses and other, pettifogging data about the District’s points of interest protect tourists from being swindled or harassed by charlatans,” asked Judge Janice Rogers Brown.

Not only was there little evidence that a testing requirement would deter unscrupulous or incompetent tour guides, Brown argued, the regulations weren’t even an effective way to protect consumers from misinformation. She noted that DC’s lawyers had conceded that “regulations would permit a tour bus to recruit a drunk off the street to pre-record audio narration” — so long as the intoxicated person in question didn’t deliver the narration live.

The decision was a victory for the Institute for Justice, a libertarian law firm that represented the plaintiffs in the case. The lawsuit is part of a national IJ campaign to reduce occupational licensing. States across the country have increasingly enacted regulations that are nominally designed to protect consumers, but seem more designed to protect incumbents from competition. Past IJ lawsuits have helped to free hair braiders from irrelevant cosmetology requirements and allow entrepreneurs to compete with incumbent taxicab companies.

For much more on occupation licensing, read Vox’s cardstack:

See More:

More in archives

archives
Ethics and Guidelines at Vox.comEthics and Guidelines at Vox.com
archives
By Vox Staff
Supreme Court
The Supreme Court will decide if the government can ban transgender health careThe Supreme Court will decide if the government can ban transgender health care
Supreme Court

Given the Court’s Republican supermajority, this case is unlikely to end well for trans people.

By Ian Millhiser
archives
On the MoneyOn the Money
archives

Learn about saving, spending, investing, and more in a monthly personal finance advice column written by Nicole Dieker.

By Vox Staff
archives
Total solar eclipse passes over USTotal solar eclipse passes over US
archives
By Vox Staff
archives
The 2024 Iowa caucusesThe 2024 Iowa caucuses
archives

The latest news, analysis, and explainers coming out of the GOP Iowa caucuses.

By Vox Staff
archives
The Big SqueezeThe Big Squeeze
archives

The economy’s stacked against us.

By Vox Staff