Brokamp v. District of Columbia

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Columbia considers a First Amendment challenge to the District's professional-counselor licensure requirement as applied to a Virginia-licensed psychologist seeking to provide teletherapy to District residents. The court concludes that the plaintiff's talk therapy constitutes protected speech and that the licensure requirement fails intermediate scrutiny as applied to her. The court grants the plaintiff partial summary judgment and awards declaratory and injunctive relief, while declining to reach her facial overbreadth claim.

Holdings

1. Brokamp has standing to challenge the District's definition of professional counseling and its practice-act licensure requirement because she suffered professional and financial injury, the injury was traceable to the challenged provisions, and favorable relief would redress it.
2. Brokamp's talk-therapy activities, which consist essentially of speaking with clients, are speech protected by the First Amendment rather than conduct that only incidentally involves speech.
3. The District's licensure requirement, as applied to Brokamp's talk therapy, violates the First Amendment because the District failed to show that the requirement advances an important governmental interest and failed to establish a sufficiently close fit between its asserted interests and the burden imposed on her speech.
4. The court declined to reach Brokamp's facial overbreadth challenge because it had already granted relief on her as-applied claim.
5. Brokamp is entitled to a declaratory judgment and a permanent injunction barring the District from enforcing the challenged provisions against her.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Brokamp had Article III standing to bring an as-applied challenge to the District's professional-counselor licensure provisions.
2. Whether the District's requirement that Brokamp obtain a District license before providing talk therapy to District residents violates the First Amendment as applied to her.
3. Whether the court should reach Brokamp's facial overbreadth challenge after resolving her as-applied claim.
4. Whether Brokamp was entitled to declaratory and permanent injunctive relief.

Disposition

other