The goals of the criminal justice system are generally believed to be crime deterrence, punishment of the wrongdoer, and rehabilitation. Two men who accomplished all three of these desired outcomes were still punished after they were released. They challenged the constitutionality of their perpetual punishment. They lost.

Dario Gurrola and Fernando Herrera were both felons. When Gurrola was 22 he was convicted of possessing a concealed dagger. Two years later, he was convicted again for assaulting a security guard. Herrera was convicted of assault with a deadly weapon and witness tampering when he was a juvenile. Both men went to prison. Both men, while there, were determined to turn their lives around. They volunteered to join the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s Conservation Camp Program and helped fight the state’s devastating and dangerous fires.

Inspired by his service, Gurrola enrolled in and completed 212 hours of training to become an Emergency Medical Technician (EMT). He completed firefighter training at the San Pasqual Reservation Fire Academy and took several other courses in firefighting. He finished them all and “earned dozens of certificates.” He went on to become a seasonal firefighter for the U.S. Forest Service. Then he hit a roadblock.

Herrera hit one too. He completed his EMT training and now works as a supervisor at the California Conservation Corps. In this job, he helped battle one of the deadliest wildfires in the state’s history.

Gurrola and Herrera have clearly paid their dues and taken many steps to transform their lives. But they cannot realize their dreams of becoming firefighters because California’s Emergency Medical Services Authority (EMSA), the state agency that regulates EMT certification, “bars persons convicted of two or more felonies from obtaining EMT certification” for ten years after their release from prison. EMT certification is a required prerequisite to becoming a firefighter.

The plaintiffs didn’t think that was fair. They paid their dues and turned their lives around. When denied the chance to get certified, they sued the director and medical director of Northern California EMSA and the medical director of one other state EMSA. They challenged the constitutionality of the block under the Equal Protection, Due Process, and Privileges and Immunities Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. They sought to enjoin the defendants from enforcing the prohibitive regulations and asked for costs.

All three of the EMSA defendants filed motions to dismiss the plaintiff’s claims. Their motion was granted at the pleading stage by District Judge John A. Mendez of the Eastern District of California in February 2021. Plaintiffs then appealed to the Ninth Circuit.

In a unanimous, unpublished opinion by Justices Ryan D. Nelson, Ronald M. Gould and Mark J. Bennett, the plaintiffs lost their appeal. The opinion began by stating that plaintiffs’ claims are “governed by rational basis review” which put the key question before them: Was the felony ban on EMT certification “rationally related to a legitimate state interest?”

Defendant/appellees say it is. They argued that EMTs have access to narcotics and sharp objects. They deal with vulnerable people and may “take actions that make the difference between life and death.”

Plaintiff/appellants say the ban is not related to a legitimate state interest. They argued the ban is discriminatory and in violation of the Due Process Clause “because it restricts certification based on criteria that are not rationally related to fitness for certification.”

In a short opinion of just four pages, the Ninth Circuit rejected the two-time felons’ arguments because “as a general matter” regulations that govern entry into a profession are constitutional if they have a rational connection to applicant’s fitness or capacity to practice.” In summary, they wrote, “In light of the responsibilities of an EMT, the felony bans are rationally related to fitness.” They also wrote that felonies “call into question a person’s moral character” and rule that “a state may require good moral character as a qualification for entry into a profession.”

Finally, they claim that the propriety of the ban isn’t their call to make. “The wisdom in the state legislature’s decision to impose certain restrictions on entry to a profession is not for courts to judge,” they wrote. “For in the end, it is for the legislature, not the courts, to balance the advantages and disadvantages of the felony bans...(They) should be sustained under rational basis review and (we) reject the challenge.”

Judge Mendez’s opinion noted that the EMT’s ban on certifying felons “has been the subject of public critique. One such article by Adesuwa Agbonile was headlined, “Inmates help battle California’s wildfires. But when freed, many can’t get firefighting jobs.” A 2019 editorial in the Sacramento Bee in 2018 said, “Inmates risking their lives to fight California’s wildfires deserve a chance at full-time jobs.”

Don’t firefighting and studying to be an EMT demonstrate good moral character? Isn’t rehabilitation one of the goals of prison? Maybe the Ninth Circuit forgot about those.