OPINION: Marohn v. Minnesota Board of Licensure

EDITOR’S NOTE: We have shared, here in the Daily Post, many thoughtful essays by Strong Towns founder and president Charles Marohn. His experiences as a professional engineer led him to become a prominent spokesperson, advocating financially and socially responsible public policies.

When his Minnesota professional engineering license inadvertently expired, another engineer complained that Marohn continued to describe himself publicly as a professional engineer. Although there was no allegation that Marohn had performed engineering work without a license, the Minnesota licensing board ultimately censured, reprimanded and fined him.

What followed was six years of administrative proceedings and litigation over the boundary between professional regulation and free speech.

On August 19, 2026, U.S. District Judge Nancy Brasel ruled that Minnesota’s restriction, as applied to Marohn’s public speech, violated the First Amendment.

Mr. Marohn recently sent the following letter to Strong Towns members.

Dear Strong Towns Members,

Friends, I want you to hear about this directly from me before you see it anywhere else. Last week, a federal judge ruled in our favor in a First Amendment case we have been fighting for six years against the Minnesota board that licenses professional engineers.

We won. Free speech won. And now we make sure that safe streets, responsible infrastructure investments, and financially resilient communities win.

This case was always about whether engineers could speak up for reform without fear of retaliation. As I wrote in Confessions of a Recovering Engineer, I have been targeted multiple times by engineers who disagreed with things I have written or said. This specific case started with a South Dakota engineer filing a complaint and the licensing board in Minnesota subsequently voting to censure, reprimand, and fine me.

A federal judge has now ruled they were wrong, that my speech was advocacy outside of the practice of engineering and, therefore, could not be regulated by the state.

We always felt a responsibility to carry this case as far as necessary. I don’t depend on my engineering license for my livelihood, but many of the people we need to step forward do. If we are going to achieve the kinds of reforms Strong Towns has fought for from the beginning, we need professional engineers willing to speak openly about what they see.

No engineer should have to choose between speaking honestly about their profession and protecting their livelihood.

Many practicing engineers have told us that they support what we are doing but can’t voice that support publicly for fear of professional retaliation. The licensing board’s actions reinforced that fear; this ruling pushes back against it. We want every licensed engineer to know that they have a professional duty and a constitutionally protected right to speak up when they see the need for reform.

We need professional engineers to join us in:

• Challenging industry standards that are dangerous,
• Questioning traffic models and projections that don’t match reality,
• Opposing highway expansions that create more liabilities than value,
• Calling out infrastructure budgets that don’t add up,
• Speaking plainly when the facts contradict accepted practice.

These are engineering questions, but they are also public-policy questions. They affect how billions of dollars are spent, how our communities develop and, quite literally, whether people live or die.

We need engineers participating in those discussions.

Professional licensing boards have an important role. They should protect the public from incompetent practice, fraud, and unsafe professional work. If someone is providing engineering services without the necessary qualifications, or putting the public at risk through negligent engineering work, I want the licensing board to act.

But there is a clear separation between regulating the practice of engineering and regulating public-policy discussion about engineering. This federal court ruling reinforces that separation.

There are many people I am grateful to after six years of this. Our attorneys stayed with a difficult case through multiple proceedings. The Strong Towns board stood behind the principle we were defending and never wavered, even when I was tired of fighting.

And I am deeply grateful to you, our members.

Strong Towns can say difficult things because we are supported by thousands of people who believe those things need to be said. That independence matters. In this case, it gave us the ability to stand behind a principle for six years when it would have been much easier to acquiesce and move on.

I’m personally relieved to have reached this point. The litigation was unpleasant. It was a burden I felt deeply and, unfortunately, one I carried with me even when my attention needed to be elsewhere. Inevitably, my wife and daughters carried some of that burden too. They didn’t ask for any of this, and it was never fair to them.

Six years is a long time to carry something like this. I’m grateful to finally put it down, and even more grateful that we were able to see it through without compromising what we believed was right.

Thank you for giving Strong Towns the independence to take the difficult path when it matters.