## Facts

- Eyebrow threading removes and shapes eyebrow hair using a looped cotton thread brushed along the skin to trap and pull hairs.
- Texas classified commercial eyebrow threading as “cosmetology” and required threaders to obtain at least an esthetician license.
- The esthetician license required 750 hours of instruction and a state examination.
- The threaders alleged most required training was unrelated to threading and imposed significant costs and delays in entering or continuing employment.
- The State conceded that over 40% of the required hours were unrelated to threading but argued the scheme was constitutional as a health-and-safety regulation.
- The threaders sought declaratory relief that the licensing requirements, as applied to threading, violated the Texas Constitution’s due-course-of-law clause (Tex. Const. art. I, § 19).

## Issues

1. Whether sovereign immunity or related justiciability doctrines (standing, ripeness, redundant-remedies) barred a suit challenging the validity of cosmetology statutes and regulations.
2. Whether requiring eyebrow threaders to complete 750 hours of esthetician training violates the Texas due-course-of-law clause because the burden is so onerous as to be oppressive in light of the State’s asserted health-and-safety interests.

## Decision

- The court held the suit could proceed and was not barred by sovereign immunity or other justiciability doctrines.
- The court reversed the summary judgment for the State and held that, as applied to eyebrow threaders, the 750-hour training requirement violated Tex. Const. art. I, § 19.
- The court remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.
- The holding was as-applied and did not invalidate Texas cosmetology licensing generally.

## Legal Principles

- The Texas due-course-of-law clause provides substantive protection against economic regulations that impose burdens so onerous as to be oppressive in light of the governmental interest served.
- In reviewing occupational licensing under Tex. Const. art. I, § 19, courts examine the real connection between the regulation’s means and the asserted public interest and consider the severity of the burden imposed.
- A licensing requirement may be unconstitutional as applied when large portions of mandated training are not arguably related to the regulated practice and the resulting costs and delays materially restrict the ability to work.

## Conclusion

The Texas Supreme Court concluded that forcing eyebrow threaders to complete 750 hours of esthetician training—despite substantial acknowledged irrelevance to threading—imposed an oppressive burden not justified by the State’s asserted health and sanitation interests, and therefore violated the Texas Constitution’s due-course-of-law guarantee as applied to threaders.


Patel v. Tex. Dep't of Licensing & Regul., 469 S.W.3d 69 (Tex. 2015)