“Psychological” Lawfare: Therapists Fight Illegal Speech Restrictions

Alleman and Catrett v. Harness

Julie Alleman and Juliet Catrett are seasoned trauma therapists in Louisiana with four decades of combined experience. As specialists who counsel people who have suffered terrible agonies, words matter. Yet, a single word that accurately describes their work has thrust them into a legal battle that tests the foundations of professional speech regulation and First Amendment rights.

In 2020, united by their dedication to mending psychological scars, Alleman and Catrett established a counseling center in Baton Rouge. They christened it the “Psychological Wellness Institute,” aiming to convey key elements of their business mission. Their carefully chosen name sparked a threat from the Louisiana Psychology Board early this year. The Board sent a letter citing a state law banning anyone but licensed psychologists from using terms like “psychology” or “psychological” in the titles or descriptions of their work. Violators face criminal prosecution. Despite their impressive credentials — Alleman is a Licensed Professional Counselor, Marriage and Family Therapist, and Addiction Counselor, and Catrett is a Licensed Clinical Social Worker – the Board accused them of breaking the law for including “psychological” in their business name. Facing possible criminal prosecution, Alleman and Catrett reluctantly rebranded as “P. Wellness Institute,” but they are deeply frustrated and worried about reaching people who need their help. How can they accurately convey their practice to trauma survivors, such as veterans battling PTSD, if basic descriptive language is off-limits? They never represent that they are licensed psychologists, who can administer specialized tests, but psychologists are not the only professionals who use psychological training to promote human flourishing.

This issue isn’t just about semantics. The statute’s expansive language could criminalize a wide array of everyday activities that use psychological principles, from sports coaching, to parenting, to addiction counseling. The law is so far-reaching it could prevent a non-licensed academic from saying she is a “psychology professor” or writes about “psychological” subjects. Using “psychological” in a business name is protected speech, especially when accurately describing the services offered. Since Alleman and Catrett don’t claim to be licensed psychologists, the state has no right to commandeer their use of a common adjective.

When government regulators claim ownership over common words, it threatens the very fabric of free expression. Determined to reclaim the word “psychological” to describe their life’s work and healing mission, Alleman and Catrett have taken their fight to court. With the help of the Louisiana-based Pelican Institute, CIR filed a federal lawsuit in October arguing that the law goes too far in defining what counts as the “practice of psychology” and that banning all forms of the word “psychological” violates the First Amendment. All Americans have the right to truthfully describe one’s work without the fear of legal repercussions. Alleman and Catrett’s story powerfully illustrates the real-world consequences of unchecked regulatory power and the importance of challenging draconian speech restrictions that serve no legitimate purpose.