Wire flash
PoliticsU.S. court strikes down D.C. teletherapy licensing law as First Amendment violation
Editorial responsibility
- No named human review is recorded for this page.
- Source reporting is collected, normalized, translated or condensed automatically when needed.
- Automatically published source-backed update
On Wednesday, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia struck down a D.C. law that prohibited therapists licensed in other jurisdictions from conducting online teletherapy sessions with clients in D.C. The decision came nearly six years after Virginia-based counselor Elizabeth Brokamp, represented by the Institute for Justice (IJ), filed a lawsuit arguing the law violated the First Amendment. IJ Deputy Director of Litigation Robert McNamara hailed the ruling as a victory for free speech, stating that the First Amendment protects useful speech like counseling. The article also includes commentary advocating for broader patient choice in telemedicine, arguing that patients should be allowed to consult any physician licensed in any state, rather than being restricted by state licensing barriers. The piece references the temporary lifting of telemedicine restrictions during the pandemic and calls for competitive federalism to enable cross-state medical consultations.
Source report
IJ: On Wednesday, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia struck down a D.C. law that barred therapists from other jurisdictions from conducting online teletherapy sessions with clients in D.C. The ruling comes nearly six years after Virginia-based counselor Elizabeth Brokamp partnered with the Institute for Justice (IJ) to file a lawsuit arguing the law violated the First Amendment.
>
“This decision is a victory for anyone who speaks for a living,” said IJ Deputy Director of Litigation Robert McNamara. “Elizabeth’s victory here confirms that the First Amendment protects useful speech, including counseling, and that licensing boards can’t censor speech simply because someone doesn’t have their permission to talk.”
Congratulations to the IJ
Now, we need to eliminate all other bans preventing patients from hiring physicians in other states. As I wrote last year:
During the pandemic, many restrictions on telemedicine were lifted, making it far easier for physicians to treat patients across state lines. That window has largely closed. Today, unless a doctor is separately licensed in a patient’s state—or the states have a formal agreement—remote care is often illegal. So if you live in Virginia and want a second opinion from a Mayo Clinic physician in Florida, you may have to fly to Florida, unless that Florida physician happens to hold a Virginia license.
>
The standard framing says this is a problem of physician licensing. That leads directly to calls for interstate compacts or federalizing medical licensure. Mutual recognition is good. Driver’s licenses are issued by states but are valid in every state. No one complains that Florida’s regime endangers Virginians.
>
But mutual recognition or federal licensing is not the only solution nor the only way to think about this issue. The real issue isn’t who licenses doctors. It’s that patients are forbidden from choosing a licensed doctor in another state. We can keep state-level licensing, but free the patient. Let any American consult any physician licensed in any state. That’s competitive federalism—no compacts, no federal agency, just patient choice.
Hat tip: Joel Selanikio
Source
Marginal REVOLUTIONWestern
Part of this Story
U.S. Court Strikes Down D.C. Teletherapy Licensing Law as First Amendment Violation