The point is well taken but it appears that the board of engineers in NC is going after nutt for violating both "title" laws and "practice" laws. So, to the extent that the NC board of engineers is going after nutt for describing himself as an engineer, it is fairly closely analogous to Jarlstrom. In Jarlstrom, the Court ruled that"Title laws restrict constitutionally protected speech." Jarlstrom described himself as an engineer to the media that he had performed engineering calculations and determined that the length of the yellow light was too short. He developed a different formula than the city used. Jarlstrom's new formula was later adopted by an engineering publication/body on traffic safety.
Here is a verbatim quote from the fact section in the final order of the Jarlstrom case: (
https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/5671551/jarlstrom1.pdf)
On February 12, 2015, the Board’s Law Enforcement Committee conducted a preliminary evaluation and voted to open a “law enforcement case” against Plaintiff. (Compl. ¶ 43; Answer ¶ 32.) In November 2016, the Board imposed a $500 civil penalty for Plaintiff’s violations of Or. Rev. Stat. § 672.020; Or. Rev. Stat. § 672.045(1) and (2); and OAR 820-010- 0730. (Compl. ¶¶ 72-74; Answer ¶¶ 50-52.) Specifically, the Board concluded that Plaintiff violated Or. Rev. Stat. § 672.020(1), Or. Rev. Stat. § 672.045(1) and (2), and OAR 820-010- 0730(3)(a) and (c) by critiquing the traffic light timing formula and submitting his critiques to members of the public, and by “asserting to the public media” and “to a public body” that he is an engineer. (Mats Järlström Decl., Ex. 14 ¶¶ 13-17.) Plaintiff paid the $500 penalty.
Here is a verbatim quote from a portion of the Jarlstrom opinion where the Court discussed whether the Oregon "title" laws for Engineers were violative of the first amendment:
So construed, the Title laws threaten a substantial amount of protected activity. First, the statutes prohibit truthfully describing oneself as an “engineer,” in any context. This restriction clearly controls and suppresses protected speech, and enforcement of the statute against protected speech is not a hypothetical threat. The record before this Court demonstrates that the Board has repeatedly targeted individuals for using the title “engineer” in non-commercial contexts, including core political speech such as campaigning for public office and advocacy against a local ballot initiative. (Pl.’s Mot. Summ. J. at 6-11.)