Free Speech Ruling in Minnesota Raises Questions for Built-Environment Professionals in the UK

A federal court in the United States has ruled that a state engineering licensing board violated the First Amendment when it disciplined a professional engineer for public advocacy critical of transport and street design standards. The decision, handed down by U.S. District Judge Nancy Brasel, draws a line between the regulated practice of engineering and the right of licensed professionals to engage in public policy debate.

The case, brought by Strong Towns founder Charles Marohn, tested whether a state board can use licensing powers to penalise an engineer for publishing articles, giving talks and appearing in videos that questioned the profession’s conventional approach to highway expansion and street safety. The ruling has implications beyond the US, particularly for UK-based planners, engineers and built-environment professionals who speak out on transport policy, housing standards and public realm design.

What the court decided

Judge Brasel ruled that the Minnesota Board of Architecture, Engineering, Land Surveying, Landscape Architecture, Geoscience and Interior Design had overstepped its authority when it censured and fined Marohn for describing himself as a professional engineer while advocating for street design reform. The board had argued that Marohn’s public statements, in which he drew on his engineering credentials to criticise highway widening and the design of “stroads” — a term he coined for roads that combine high-speed traffic with direct property access — constituted professional misconduct.

The court disagreed. It held that writing an article about traffic safety, giving a TEDx talk on street design, or appearing on a podcast to discuss transport funding is not the practice of engineering. The state retains full authority to regulate the actual practice of engineering — signing plans, performing calculations, designing infrastructure — and to discipline incompetence or unethical conduct. But it cannot use that authority to control what an engineer says as part of a public policy discussion.

The professional context

The case has its roots in a 2015 column Marohn wrote for Strong Towns, a US-based urbanism non-profit. In it, he asked whether a professional engineer could speak out for reform within the profession. A complaint was filed with the Minnesota licensing board, which investigated but found no violation, though it warned the file could be reopened.

Eleven years later, the board did reopen it. After Marohn inadvertently let his engineering license lapse in 2018, a second complaint was filed. Despite Marohn having stopped practising engineering in 2012, and having done no engineering work during the lapse, the board pursued enforcement. It questioned him not about unlicensed practice but about his public advocacy — a TEDx talk, an appearance at The American Conservative, a Talks at Google presentation, and other public engagements.

The board ultimately censured Marohn and fined him $1,500, a decision he challenged through the Minnesota courts and then in federal court. The case took six years, including an administrative proceeding, a state appeal and two federal court hearings.

Relevance to UK planning and transport professionals

While the ruling is specific to US constitutional law, it touches on a question that matters for UK built-environment professionals: how far can a regulatory body go in disciplining a member for public commentary on policy?

In the UK, the Institution of Civil Engineers, the Royal Town Planning Institute, the Royal Institute of British Architects and other professional bodies maintain codes of conduct that require members to act with integrity and to uphold the reputation of the profession. None of these bodies has a formal power to prevent a member from criticising government policy or professional standards, but the case highlights the potential tension between professional loyalty and public advocacy.

UK planners and engineers regularly comment on controversial issues: the expansion of the Silvertown Tunnel, the design of Low Traffic Neighbourhoods, the safety of cycle lanes on main roads, or the housing targets in the London Plan. The Marohn case suggests that professional bodies should be cautious about using disciplinary powers to penalise members for expressing opinions on matters of public policy, even when those opinions draw on professional expertise.

What changes for London professionals

For London-based urbanism professionals, the ruling reinforces the principle that professional credentials do not silence public criticism. An engineer who works for Transport for London or a planning consultant who advises a borough council can still write articles, give talks and participate in consultations about street design or transport policy without risking their professional standing — provided they do not claim to speak for their employer or misrepresent their qualifications.

The case also serves as a reminder that professional licensing exists to protect public safety, not to suppress debate. If a transport engineer believes that a proposed junction design is unsafe, or that a traffic modelling assumption is flawed, they should be able to say so in public without fear of disciplinary action. The court in Minnesota drew exactly that distinction: regulate the practice, not the advocacy.

Source limitations and next checks

The ruling is a federal district court decision and may be appealed. It applies only to the specific facts of the Marohn case and does not set a binding precedent outside the United States. UK professionals should consult their own regulatory bodies for guidance on the boundaries of public commentary.

For London readers, the practical takeaway is that the case provides a useful benchmark for thinking about the relationship between professional standards and public debate. Anyone planning to speak out on a controversial planning or transport issue should check their professional body’s code of conduct and, if in doubt, seek advice before going public.

Source: Strong Towns — Can an Engineer Speak Out for Reform? https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2026-8-31-can-an-engineer-speak-out-for-reform