Occupational licensing cannot be used as a tool to trump free speech - says a federal court in Kentucky

According to recent studies, over 1/3 of jobs in the U.S. are regulated by certification or licensing.

Apparently, bars to entry into nearly every plausible profession and occupation are staring to cost the U.S. economy so much that even conservative court system that is extremely biased towards the government, started to take notice and to react.

In 2013, monks in Louisiana won their right to sell coffins against the direct challenge of the State Board of  Funeral directors that attempted to challenge monks' business as a regulated mortuary services.

The pressure of the funeral directors was clearly not for protection of consumers, but to quash cheaper alternatives for caskets in a state that undergone the disaster of hurricane Katrina, and where the customer base of those who could afford expensive funerals has shrunk.

On February 25, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court struck the attempt of North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners to regulate teeth whitening as practice of dentistry, with a presidential decision affecting all professions regulated by their own market players.  Since February 25, 2015, any member of the "State" licensing board that is run by a super-majority of market players without proper state oversight is subject to treble damages in civil lawsuits for antitrust violations.

In June of 2015, Texas State Supreme Court has struck down attempts of the State Board of Cosmetologists to regulate the business of "eyebrow threaders".

The next blow came from the U.S. District Court in the Easter District of Kentucky in the case Rosemond v Markham, Case No. 13-42-GFVT, where, on September 30, 2015, the court has struck attempts of Kentucky Board of psychologists to compel a columnist to remove from his online column the statement that he is a psychologist and claims that the columnist was engaged in unauthorized practice of psychology.

Claims of Kentucky State Board of psychologists was rejected on 1st Amendment grounds, a big victory of free speech against attempts of state governments to quash it under the guise of occupational regulation.

Even before the decision in this case came out, some legal scholars - surprisingly - advocated for application of strict scrutiny to the so-called "professional speech", especially in professions where the regulated activity CONSISTS OF SPEECH, and often of speech on matters of serious public concern.

I wonder when consumer unions will take the matter in their own hands, as consumer unions started to do regarding legal services, in California and in other states, and demand restructuring of occupational regulation in compliance with existing federal antitrust law.

Because, apparently, from Louisiana to North Carolina to Texas to Kentucky to other states, the declaration and promise of occupational licensing as consumer protection has failed and is hurting the economy, by denying people the right to enter occupations of their choice and be able to earn a proper family-sustaining livelihood, reducing consumer choices and reducing influx of taxes that could otherwise help sustain this country's needs, including social programs.