Brokamp v. District of Columbia: What Counselors Should Know

On June 24, the U.S. District Court for Washington, District of Columbia (D.C.) ruled in favor of a Virginia-licensed professional counselor who challenged D.C.’s counselor licensing requirements as applied to her provision of teletherapy. Although the ruling applies only to the plaintiff and does not invalidate D.C.’s licensing law, the decision addresses the intersection of the First Amendment, professional licensure and interstate telebehavioral health practice.

What Happened in the Case?

The plaintiff is a licensed professional counselor who lives and practices in Virginia but is not licensed in D.C. She sought to provide counseling by telephone or video from her Virginia office to clients physically located in the D.C. Because D.C. generally requires counselors treating clients located within the District to hold a D.C. license, she challenged the requirement, arguing that its application to her violated her First Amendment right to free speech.

The federal district court agreed and permanently barred D.C. from enforcing the challenged licensing provisions against the plaintiff.

Importantly, the decision is an “as-applied” ruling. It does not invalidate D.C.’s counselor licensing statute or establish a general right for counselors to practice across state lines without authorization. The ruling applies specifically to the plaintiff, and counselors should continue to comply with applicable state licensing requirements and recognized interstate practice pathways, including the Counseling Compact where available.

How Does Chiles v. Salazar Fit In?

The Brokamp decision follows the U.S. Supreme Court’s March 2026 decision in Chiles v. Salazar. In Chiles, the Supreme Court considered a Colorado law restricting certain forms of conversion therapy for minors. The Court concluded that, as applied to the counselor’s talk therapy, the law regulated speech based on its content and viewpoint and therefore required heightened First Amendment scrutiny.

The D.C. court applied the First Amendment framework articulated in Chiles outside the conversion-therapy context and to the professional licensing requirement at issue in this teletherapy case.

In evaluating D.C.’s licensing requirements, the court concluded that the District had not demonstrated that applying the requirement to the plaintiff furthered a substantial governmental interest. The court found that the interests advanced by the District were too high-level and that the law was not narrowly tailored because a less-burdensome licensing regime was possible. The court specifically suggested that the District could recognize professional counseling licenses issued by other states, such as Virginia.

The court declined to assess the plaintiff’s broader challenge that the statute was overbroad. Its ruling therefore remained focused on the constitutionality of applying D.C.’s licensing requirements to this plaintiff specifically.

What Could This Mean for Counselors?

For now, the immediate practical impact is limited. The decision does not eliminate state-based counselor licensure, change existing scope-of-practice laws nationwide or replace interstate practice mechanisms such as the Counseling Compact. Counselors should not interpret the decision as permission to provide services in a jurisdiction where they are not licensed or otherwise authorized to practice.

Because the case is now on appeal, ACA is approaching broader interpretations of the ruling cautiously.

ACA has been engaged in the Brokamp litigation since before the district court’s June 2026 decision. ACA previously filed an amicus curiae brief in support of the District of Columbia, arguing that professional counseling is a distinct, regulated health care profession and that counselor licensure serves an important public-protection function by establishing minimum standards for education, training, competency and ethical practice. ACA’s brief emphasized that professional counseling should not be treated as ordinary speech simply because counseling services are delivered primarily through communication; and supported the District’s authority to regulate the practice of professional counseling through licensure.

Brokamp also follows earlier litigation involving similar questions about state licensure and interstate teletherapy. In Brokamp v. James, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit considered a First Amendment challenge to New York’s requirement that an out-of-state licensed counselor obtain authorization to provide mental health counseling to clients located in New York. In 2023, the Second Circuit upheld New York’s licensure-by-endorsement requirement, concluding that it was content neutral and satisfied intermediate scrutiny. The court emphasized New York’s important governmental interest in promoting and protecting public health, specifically public mental health, and found that the state’s licensing framework was narrowly tailored to advance that interest without unduly burdening speech.

Against that legal backdrop, the D.C. court subsequently applied the First Amendment framework articulated in Chiles to D.C.’s professional licensing requirement governing teletherapy. The differing analyses illustrate the evolving legal landscape surrounding therapeutic speech and professional licensure, particularly as courts consider how First Amendment protections apply to counseling delivered across jurisdictional lines.

ACA will continue monitoring the appeal and the implementation of Chiles for potential effects on counselor licensure, interstate practice, telebehavioral health and states’ authority to regulate the counseling profession.