; and (ii) demonstrates that the occupational licensing law is substantially related to achievement of the important government interest described in clause (i), in light of the availability of less restrictive alternatives to occupational licensing; (B) provide an affirmative defense against enforcement of any occupational licensing law of the State under which the State shall be required to demonstrate that the standard under subparagraph (A) has been met; (C) establish a cause of action under which— (i) a person may bring an action for injunctive relief against enforcement of an occupational licensing law of the State; (ii) the plaintiff bears the initial burden to prove that the challenged occupational licensing law substantially burdens the plaintiff’s ability to engage in a lawful occupation; and (iii) once the plaintiff makes the initial showing under clause (ii), the State is required to demonstrate that the standard under subparagraph (A) has been met; (D) provide for an award of reasonable costs and attorney fees to a person who successfully challenges the application of an occupational licensing law of the State by— (i) raising an affirmative defense under subparagraph (B); or (ii) bringing an action under subparagraph (C); and (E) provide for independent judicial review of the occupational licensing laws of the State to ensure that the standard set forth in subparagraph (A) has been met; and (2) may not authorize a court to— (A) uphold enforcement of an occupational licensing law of the State simply because the court believes the law is rationally related to a legitimate governmental purpose; (B) rely on hypothetical risks to public safety, not substantiated by evidence in the record, to uphold enforcement of an occupational licensing law of the State; (C) defer to factual or legal conclusions of another person or entity, rather than exercising independent review