Unfortunately this case was not about challenging a State’s authority to issue professional licenses.
Instead this case was about whether the State Board that oversees the licensing of professional engineers (P.E.) can prohibit the testimony and evidence of an unlicensed (though very experienced) engineer who was providing calculations and an engineering analysis in support of a lawsuit filed by a group of homeowners suing the State over an inadequately designed storm water management system that I assume had failed during a Hurricane.
Shocking but not shocking is that it appears the State never challenged his calculations or analysis (which were supported by a PE), but instead focused on their position that his lack of a PE license gave the State the authority to silence him. Plaintiff Nutt’s assertion is that his testimony and analysis were protected speech under the First Amendment.
In a Summary Judgment the Judge ruled in Nutt’s favor, affirming his First Amendment rights in this particular court case (as he should have), and denying the State’s motions in toto.
Thank you. I understand that. My point was to be provocative and get to the core here, which was about the issue of state licensing in the first place.
Are these state required licenses constitutional?
Unfortunately this case was not about challenging a State’s authority to issue professional licenses.
Instead this case was about whether the State Board that oversees the licensing of professional engineers (P.E.) can prohibit the testimony and evidence of an unlicensed (though very experienced) engineer who was providing calculations and an engineering analysis in support of a lawsuit filed by a group of homeowners suing the State over an inadequately designed storm water management system that I assume had failed during a Hurricane.
Shocking but not shocking is that it appears the State never challenged his calculations or analysis (which were supported by a PE), but instead focused on their position that his lack of a PE license gave the State the authority to silence him. Plaintiff Nutt’s assertion is that his testimony and analysis were protected speech under the First Amendment.
In a Summary Judgment the Judge ruled in Nutt’s favor, affirming his First Amendment rights in this particular court case (as he should have), and denying the State’s motions in toto.
Thank you. I understand that. My point was to be provocative and get to the core here, which was about the issue of state licensing in the first place.