Assembly bill would create judicial review process for licensing denials tied to criminal history; supporters cite workforce and equity goals

Assembly Bill 264, sponsored by Assemblymember Brittany Miller, would create a statutory judicial review path for applicants denied professional or occupational licenses under Title 54 when the denial is based on criminal history or a finding of lack of "good moral character." Miller and Atar Hasibullah, executive director for ACLU of Nevada, framed the measure as a means to standardize review, protect due process and reduce barriers to workforce reentry for people with prior criminal contacts.

"People should not be unfairly denied access to occupations or deterred from even trying to become licensed based on old or irrelevant offenses," Miller said in opening remarks. Hasibullah described the proposal as providing individualized review: boards could still deny licenses where public‑safety risks are unmitigable, but applicants would be able to petition for a judicial review that requires courts to issue written findings and give applicants notice of what steps might mitigate the board's concerns.

Proponents presented national and state data during testimony. Miller cited National Conference of State Legislatures research estimating tens of millions of Americans have criminal records and Institute for Justice reports that ranked Nevada as having among the most onerous licensing burdens for justice‑impacted individuals. Supporters including the ACLU, Institute for Justice, NAACP Las Vegas chapter, Americans for Prosperity and others argued the bill would increase access to work, potentially reduce recidivism and give applicants clear procedural rights. Multiple callers and in‑person witnesses urged passage on equity and workforce grounds.

Opponents and agencies raised implementation and scope concerns. Misty Grimmer of the Nevada State Contractors Board said the Contractors Board already considers criminal history on an individualized basis and noted an existing appeals process that can go to a full board and then to Justice Court. Alexis Motorex of Associated General Contractors said statutory definitions will need technical work because NRS defines "person" to include businesses and the proposed language could unintentionally change coverage. Michael Hillerby, representing the Nevada District Judges Association, said the bill as introduced prompted judicial concerns but that a draft amendment discussed with proponents addresses most issues; he provided statistics from boards, noting the Board of Nursing processed about 20,000 applications last year and denied two, and the Board of Pharmacy processed almost 10,000 and denied none.

Committee members asked about alternatives (for example, flat prohibitions on denial based solely on arrest records), timelines and which boards would be covered. Miller and Hasibullah said the bill focuses on individuals (applicants) and that proponents are seeking amendments to limit the statutory change to licenses under Title 54 (many licensing authorities outside Title 54 would not be affected). Committee members suggested additional clarifications: timelines for agency decisions, standardized notification methods (including electronic notice), and whether attorney‑fee awards or other remedies should be added.

The hearing included a mix of organizational supporters and opponents, discussion of proposed amendments, and substantive questions from the committee. The committee recorded testimony but did not take a final vote during the session captured in the transcript.