A federal court
has thrown out the core provisions of the Texas psychologist licensing law. That law is almost identical to the laws
governing North Carolina psychologists.
The
plaintiff, Dr. Mary Louise Serafine, had completed a four-year post-doctoral
fellowship in psychology at Yale. Genetic Psychology Monographs published her Ph.D. dissertation.
She was a professor in the Yale and Vassar psychology departments. Finally, she had a law degree from Yale.
Despite these impressive credentials, she is not eligible for licensure as a
psychologist in Texas because she does not have a doctorate from a qualifying
program.
Despite
being unlicensed, she called herself a “psychologist,” taught seminars, and
provided one-on-one patient counseling. But
it was not until she ran for the Texas Senate that she caught the attention of
the Texas Psychology Board. The Board
ordered her to stop using the title “psychologist” and to stop providing
“psychological services” in Texas.
Serafine sued the Texas Board arguing that its laws violated her right
to free speech.
The
appellate court agreed with Serafine.
I’m sure that her impeccable credentials had a big influence on the
Court’s ruling. Had she been a pedophile
whose claims to be a “child psychologist” had lured hundreds of children to
their deaths, the case may have gone the other way.
Serafine
pointed out that the Texas statute gave the Board power to close down
Alcoholics Anonymous, Weight-Watchers, self-help groups, life-coaches, yoga
teachers, political consultants, and golf professionals. Citing a recent case in which the Kentucky Psychology
Board went after a newspaper advice columnist, the Texas Court agreed that licensing
laws have been used to prohibit activities protected by the first
amendment.
The Court wrote
“The ability to provide guidance about the common problems of life – marriage,
children, alcohol, health – is a foundation of human interaction and society,
whether this advice be found in an almanac, at the feet of grandparents, or in
a circle of friends.”
Recently
licensing boards have lost many federal court cases throughout the
country. In 2013, a federal court threw
out an attempt by the N.C. Board of Dietetics to stop Steve Cooksey, the
“Caveman Blogger,” from giving dietary advice.
The courts also prohibited the N.C. Dental Board from regulating tooth
whitening. A Dental Board in Texas can
no longer regulate advertising by dentists who claim to be specialists in areas
not approved by the American Dental Association.
After the
Serafine ruling, Texas began revising its psychology laws. The next round of litigation will determine
whether less restrictive licensing laws will survive judicial scrutiny. If not, consumers may find themselves at the
mercy of a legion of ill-informed advisors.
It is true
that before the Internet, Americans relied on almanacs, grandparents, and
friends for guidance. They also
innocently relied on “snake oil” salesmen who killed many with deadly
potions. To protect us from these dangers,
every state in this country passed laws requiring training and monitoring of
physicians, psychologists, lawyers, dentists and others.
While
Grandma’s advice could lead the members of her family astray, Internet quacks
can harm millions. Courts will continue
to balance the need to protect against these dangers with the need to allow
free expression of ideas. Hopefully, carefully
drafted licensing laws can accomplish both goals.
