In 2017, Mats Järlström, a Beaverton, Oregon resident, was fined $500 by the Oregon State Board of Examiners for Engineering and Land Surveying for both labeling himself as an “engineer” and for publicly offering an opinion regarding the timing of Beaverton’s traffic lights. Järlström holds a Bachelor of Science in engineering from his home country Sweden, but he is not licensed as a professional engineer in the state of Oregon. He contested that Beaverton’s timing of yellow traffic lights was too short and a safety hazard. His interest stemmed from a red light ticket his wife received; Järlström spent three years analyzing the method for calculating the duration of a yellow light. He found that the formula failed to account for drivers who must slow down to make a legal turn.

First, he submitted his analysis to Beaverton City Council, but after they rebuffed him, Järlström filed a civil rights case that challenged the legality of the City of Beaverton’s yellow light intervals as being too short to comply with the Oregon Vehicle Code. Järlström also reached out to the Board of Examiners for Engineering and Land Surveying for help. But, instead of helping Järlström, the board fined him $500. Citing state laws that make it illegal to practice engineering without a license, the Board told Järlström that his use of the phrase “I am an engineer” in his letter to the Board was enough to “create a violation.”1 Additionally, the Board found that Järlström’s research into traffic lights and their effectiveness amounted to practicing engineering without a license. In this sense, the board ruled that a non-engineer could not even state an opinion in public on engineering matters if not licensed as an engineer.

Järlström argued that it was unconstitutional to prevent someone from doing math without the government’s permission. In a video for the Institute of Justice, Järlström stated, “Anyone should be able to talk about the traffic signals if they’re too long or too short or anything without being penalized.”2 Backed by a lawyer from the National Institute for Justice, Järlström sued. However, his lawsuit did not seek any monetary damages. Instead, he only sought a judicial order that told the state board to stop violating the free speech rights of Oregonians.

“Criticizing the government’s engineering isn’t a crime; it’s a constitutional right,” said Sam Gedge, an attorney at the Institute for Justice. “Under the First Amendment, you don’t need to be a licensed lawyer to write an article critical of a Supreme Court decision, you don’t need to be a licensed landscape architect to create a gardening blog, and you don’t need to be a licensed engineer to talk about traffic lights.”3 Järlström argued that the state law should be restricted to only regulating engineering communications that are made as part of paid employment or a contractual agreement. As Mr. Järlström’s case did not involve any commercial pursuits, advertising, or other money-making efforts, he accused the board members of interfering with free speech.

After an extensive legal battle, a federal magistrate judge declared that certain parts of state law and its administrative rules that govern engineering practices in Oregon violate the First Amendment. The court further declared that Järlström “may study, communicate publicly about, and communicate privately about, his theories relating to traffic lights as long as Järlström’s communications occur outside the context of an employment or contractual relationship relating to the timing of traffic lights with a governmental or other entity that changes or implements or has final approval to change or implement traffic-light timing without the review and acceptance of responsibility by an Oregon-licensed professional engineer.”4

Further, U.S. Magistrate Judge Stacie F. Beckerman wrote in her 25-page ruling, “Unlike ‘M.D.’ or ‘certified public accountant,’ there is no fixed meaning to the title, ‘engineer […]’ Courts have long recognized that the term ‘engineer’ has a generic meaning, separate from ‘professional engineer,’ and that the term has enjoyed ‘widespread usage in job titles in our society to describe positions which require no professional training.”5

So can an engineering board regulate free speech? For now, the answer is no. The decision in Mats Järlström’s case revealed that the board cannot regulate free speech in the case of someone who is not receiving money or advertising services. Despite not holding an engineering license, Mats Järlström is free to comment on and analyze engineering-related issues and his analysis and any conversation thereafter is protected under the First Amendment.

1 Boehm, Eric. “After Challenging Red Light Cameras, Oregon Man Fined $500 for Practicing Engineering Without a License.” Reason, 26 Apr. 2017.

2 Boehm, Eric. “After Challenging Red Light Cameras, Oregon Man Fined $500 for Practicing Engineering Without a License.” Reason, 26 Apr. 2017.

3 Ibid

4 Pretz, Kathy. “U.S. Judge Rules Mats Järlström’s First Amendment Rights Were Infringed.” IEEE Spectrum, 19 Jan. 2019.

5 Berenstein, Maxine. “Federal Judge Finds State Law Governing Who Is an ‘Engineer’ Violates Free Speech.” The Oregonian, 29 Dec. 2018.

Do you have any comments on this interesting subject? Add them in the comments section below.