780 F.Supp.3d 608
M.D. La.2025Background
- Plaintiffs Julie Alleman and Juliet Catrett (owners of P. Wellness Institute) are licensed as a professional counselor, marriage-and-family therapist, addiction counselor, and clinical social worker, respectively; they formerly operated as "Psychological Wellness Institute" and were investigated by the Louisiana State Board of Examiners of Psychologists for using the term "psychological."
- After a Board representative warned of alleged violations, Plaintiffs changed their business name; they seek to restore "Psychological Wellness Institute" and to tell clients they apply "psychological principles, methods, and procedures" in therapy.
- Louisiana law (La. Rev. Stat. § 37:2352, § 37:2360, et seq.) defines the "practice of psychology," forbids practicing or representing oneself as a psychologist without a license, and authorizes the Board to investigate, seek injunctive relief, and refer criminal prosecutions.
- Plaintiffs brought a pre-enforcement First Amendment as-applied challenge and a facial overbreadth challenge to the statutory prohibition on using forms of "psychology/psychological/psychologist," and sought declaratory and injunctive relief.
- Defendants (Board members, Board officials, and the East Baton Rouge Parish District Attorney) moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, sovereign immunity, and for failure to state a claim; Plaintiffs also moved for a preliminary injunction.
- Ruling: the Court denied dismissal as to standing and rejected Eleventh Amendment bar (Ex parte Young applies), but granted dismissal (without prejudice) of Plaintiffs’ as-applied and overbreadth challenges to the Title Provision (use of the word in a trade name), gave leave to amend, and denied the preliminary injunction without prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to bring pre-enforcement challenges (Title, Services, Practice provisions) | Plaintiffs were threatened, changed their name, want to resume using "psychological" and describing services; that creates a credible threat of enforcement and chilling injury | Standing must be shown for each provision/relief; Plaintiffs lack an imminent, traceable injury as to Services and Practice provisions | Court found Plaintiffs alleged imminent, traceable injury for Title, Services, and Practice provisions and denied jurisdictional dismissal (standing pleaded) |
| Eleventh Amendment / Ex parte Young (suit against Board officials) | Board has authority to investigate, seek injunctions, and threatened action—so Young allows prospective relief against officials | Board is an arm of the State; argument that only DA prosecutes misdemeanors or that Board discretion defeats Young | Court found Board is arm of state but Ex parte Young applies because the Board has a specific enforcement duty, demonstrated willingness to act, and has constrained Plaintiffs—MTD denied on sovereign-immunity ground |
| As-applied First Amendment challenge to Title Provision (trade name "Psychological Wellness Institute") | Plaintiffs assert they truthfully describe their services and are entitled to say so; trade name is protected commercial or mixed speech | Title use is commercial speech and either inherently or actually misleading; state may restrict misleading professional titles; Central Hudson applies | Court held the complaint failed to plead that the trade name is not inherently or actually misleading and failed to plead Central Hudson least-restrictive-alternative facts; dismissed as-applied Title claim without prejudice, with leave to amend |
| Overbreadth challenge to Title Provision | Statute reaches a wide swath of truthful, non-misleading speech by people who use psychological principles (life coaches, AA members, parents) | Overbreadth doctrine does not apply to commercial speech; Title restriction is commercial (trade name) only | Court held Plaintiffs’ facial overbreadth challenge to the Title Provision targets commercial speech and dismissed that overbreadth claim (without prejudice) |
Key Cases Cited
- Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908) (permits prospective federal relief against state officials enforcing unconstitutional state laws)
- Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Comm'n, 447 U.S. 557 (1980) (four-part test for regulation of commercial speech)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (standing requires concrete, particularized, actual or imminent injury)
- Clapper v. Amnesty Int'l USA, 568 U.S. 398 (2013) (threatened injury must be certainly impending or present substantial risk)
- Serafine v. Branaman, 810 F.3d 354 (5th Cir. 2016) (overbreadth doctrine not applicable to pure commercial speech)
- Express Oil Change, L.L.C. v. Mississippi Bd. of Licensure for Professional Eng'rs & Surveyors, 916 F.3d 483 (5th Cir. 2019) (trade-name commercial-speech analysis; actual vs. inherent misleading inquiry; Central Hudson application)
- Abramson v. Gonzalez, 949 F.2d 1567 (11th Cir. 1992) (truthful commercial claims by practitioners permitted where state law allows the underlying practice; favors disclosure/ disclaimers over total bans)
- Maceluch v. Wysong, 680 F.2d 1062 (5th Cir. 1982) (state may bar use of professional titles where use would be misleading)
- Braidwood Mgmt., Inc. v. Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n, 70 F.4th 914 (5th Cir. 2023) (pre-enforcement credible-threat analysis; standing for declaratory relief where enforcement history and guidance create a genuine threat)
- Speech First, Inc. v. Fenves, 979 F.3d 319 (5th Cir. 2020) (in pre-enforcement challenges to non-moribund statutes facial restrictions on a plaintiff’s class can create an assumed credible threat)