Niang v. Carroll, No. 16-3968 (8th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this CaseMissouri Revised Statute Sections 328.020 and 329.030, which require African-style hair braiders to have a license to work for pay, is rationally related to a legitimate state interest in protecting consumers and ensuring public health and safety. In this case, the State offered evidence of health risks associated with braiding such as hair loss, inflammation, and scalp infection. The Eighth Circuit held that the Missouri statutes did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment rights of the African-style hair braiders, and affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the State.
Court Description: Benton, Author, with Colloton and Kelly, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Missouri licensing statutes. Missouri Revised Statute Sections 328.020 and 329.030 which require African-style hair braiders to have a license to work for pay is rationally related to legitimate state interests in protecting consumers and ensuring public health and safety and do not violate the Fourteenth Amendment rights of the braiders.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.