Julie Alleman and Juliet Catrett v. Harness

The Story

The freedom to communicate openly and accurately with clients is essential for counselors and therapists. Yet, a Louisiana law prohibits licensed counselors from using the terms “psychology,” “psychological,” or “psychologist” to describe their services unless they hold a specific psychologist license. This restriction prevents trained counselors from discussing the psychological principles that inform their work, even when those principles are central to their treatment of trauma, anxiety, and other disorders.

The Louisiana State Board of Examiners of Psychologists has enforced this law against Julie Alleman and Juliet Catrett, two Baton Rouge-based therapists who co-operated the “Psychological Wellness Institute.” Earlier this year, they were forced to change their practice’s name to “P Wellness Institute” under the threat of criminal prosecution. Their work—rooted in psychological theories and techniques—has been hampered by the law’s restrictions, which prevent them from accurately describing their services to vulnerable clients.

Represented by the Pelican Institute for Public Policy and the Center for Individual Rights, Alleman and Catrett have filed a federal lawsuit challenging Louisiana’s unconstitutional speech restriction. The case argues that the state’s law violates the First Amendment by preventing these licensed professionals from using common, descriptive terms to explain their practice to those in need.

As one of the plaintiffs said, “Our business is built on trust and communication, but the law makes it a crime for us to use the ordinary words people expect to hear from their counselors. That makes it much harder to communicate openly with the people who come to us for help.”

Louisiana’s sweeping language restrictions also affect life-coaches, parents, and other non-psychologists, limiting their ability to share psychological insights without a state-issued license. This lawsuit seeks to protect the rights of all professionals who rely on clear, open communication in their work.

This case is a crucial step in defending free speech and ensuring that Louisiana’s law does not prevent counselors from providing critical care to those who need it most.