[zachware]

One thing we seem to be overlooking is the difference between representing yourself as X versus engaging in the professional rendering of X services to the public.

This is a significant distinction. While I'm generally opposed to the majority of occupational licensing requirements but I can understand the function of regulating professional offerings.

So in both this case and the referenced Oregon case from another comment, the "charge" by the licensure body is that the individuals are using the term engineer while doing things that aren't "rendering the service of engineering for payment."

I am a reasonably decent electrician and feel confident fiddling with my own outlets. The electrician's body does not have the right to regulate that activity. Nor can it regulate my saying I'm a decent electrician.

It does, however, have the right to regulate my rendering those services to the public for payment (with some legal gray area around rendering it for free).

This is what makes this a first amendment case that seems justified.

EDIT: I do understand by using electrician as an example, I invite comments about how I might be breaking fire code or my home insurance covenants. That's correct but it's a different externalities problem.