WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

AB 264

Relating to: certain limitations on claiming the veterans and surviving spouses property tax credit. (FE)

2025-2026 Regular Session Introduced by Margaret Arney and 16 co-sponsors

AB 264 lets applicants denied licenses over moral character or criminal history seek expedited judicial review, requiring regulators to prove real public-safety risk.

Failed to pass pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · AB 264

AB 264 — Summary (2025 session, BDR 54-926)

Status: Introduced Jan 16, 2025. Passed Assembly (May 29, 2025). Referred to Senate; placed on special consent calendar Sept 3, 2025; ordered to inactive file at sponsor request. Final status: No further action taken.

Purpose / Intent

AB 264 establishes a statutory process allowing applicants who are denied certain professional or occupational licenses because of alleged deficiencies in "moral character" or criminal history to obtain expedited judicial review. The bill is intended to (1) increase procedural transparency and due process for licensure denials based on character or criminal records, and (2) require licensing regulators to show a concrete public-safety justification before a court will uphold a denial.

Key provisions

  • Adds a new section to NRS Chapter 622 (Title 54/regulatory bodies).
  • Notice and administrative remedies:
    • Before issuing a final denial, the regulatory body must advise the applicant of available administrative remedies and related timelines.
    • Within 10 days of a final decision denying licensure on moral-character/criminal-history grounds, the regulatory body must provide written notice explaining the basis for the decision.
  • Judicial review timeline:
    • An applicant may petition the district court within 30 days after receipt of the written notice.
    • The court sets a hearing and provides notice to the parties.
  • Burden of proof and evidence:
    • At hearing, the regulatory body bears the burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that issuing the license “would pose a direct, substantial and unmitigable risk to public health or safety” given the profession’s duties and responsibilities.
    • Evidence of prior arrests alone is insufficient to meet the burden.
    • Regulatory bodies may present relevant evidence explaining how they reached the decision.
  • Court orders:
    • If the regulatory body meets its burden, the court affirms the denial and issues specific findings and conclusions; the court may also order the regulator to meet with the applicant about steps to address concerns.
    • If the regulator fails to meet its burden, the court orders the regulator to issue the license and the regulator must comply notwithstanding other law.
  • Definitions and exemptions:
    • “Applicant” defined as a natural person seeking a license.
    • The first reprint exempts licenses issued by the State Contractors’ Board under NRS chapter 624.

Who is affected

  • Applicants (natural persons) for professional or occupational licenses issued by state regulatory bodies under NRS Title 54, except those licenses exempted (e.g., certain contractor licenses).
  • State regulatory bodies/boards that deny applicants on moral-character or criminal-history grounds.
  • Potential indirect effects on employers, licensed professions, and communities seeking to reduce barriers to employment for justice-impacted individuals.

Procedural notes & legislative history highlights

  • Introduced Feb 20, 2025 (first reading Jan 16 printer date). Passed Assembly 70–0 on May 29, 2025.
  • Multiple committee actions and amendments (Amendment No. 128 / First Reprint) revised scope, timelines, burden of proof (initial drafts used “clear and convincing”; later versions use “preponderance”), and added the NRS 624 exemption.
  • Supporters who submitted testimony or proposed amendments: ACLU of Nevada (concept amendment), NAACP Las Vegas, Institute for Justice, and academic labor-policy commentators.
  • Fiscal impact: Authors’ materials indicate no effect on state or local government.

Potential impacts / considerations

  • Lowers the evidentiary hurdle for regulators to uphold denials compared with “clear and convincing” standard in early drafts (final text uses preponderance), increasing likelihood applicants may obtain licenses upon review unless regulators present specific public-safety risks.
  • Strengthens procedural protections (notice, timelines, ability to seek court review), and limits reliance on arrests alone as a basis for denial.
  • Could increase litigation against regulatory bodies, but sponsors contend it will reduce arbitrary barriers to employment, particularly for justice-impacted and marginalized populations.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.