Marohn v. Minnesota Board of Architecture

Background

Charles L. Marohn, Jr. obtained an engineering license in 2000 and practiced engineering for twelve years. He later stopped practicing engineering and devoted himself to Strong Towns, a nonprofit organization he founded. He published books and gave speeches promoting the organization’s message.

Marohn’s engineering license expired on July 1, 2018, after he failed to submit a renewal application. He said he did not realize the license had expired until June 2020, when he reapplied and was relicensed later that month. During the period when he was unlicensed, he referred to himself as a “professional engineer” in publications and biographies distributed before speaking engagements.

The Minnesota Board’s Complaint Committee investigated after receiving a report about Marohn’s use of the title. Marohn told the Board that he had not performed engineering work while his license was expired. The Committee nevertheless alleged that he had violated Minnesota Statutes section 326.02 by holding himself out as a professional engineer and practicing engineering, and that he had made a false statement on his relicensing application. The Committee offered settlement stipulations requiring admissions and monetary penalties, but Marohn refused to sign them. The Board then initiated a contested administrative case before the Minnesota Office of Administrative Hearings.

Federal lawsuit and motion

Marohn filed this federal lawsuit on May 18, 2021. He sought a declaration that section 326.02 was unconstitutional as applied to him, an injunction preventing the Board from applying the statute to him, and attorney’s fees. The Board moved to dismiss, arguing primarily that the federal court should abstain under the Younger doctrine because the related state administrative proceeding was pending. The Board alternatively argued that Marohn had failed to state a plausible claim for relief.

Court’s analysis

The Younger abstention doctrine generally prevents a federal court from interfering with certain ongoing state proceedings. The court applied the doctrine because the administrative case was a civil enforcement proceeding initiated by the Board after an investigation, could result in sanctions, and was being heard by an administrative law judge.

The court also found that the proceeding implicated an important state interest. Minnesota has a significant interest in regulating professional conduct and the use of professional titles, including the title “professional engineer,” to support the safe and regulated practice of engineering. The court said it did not need to decide whether Marohn was an inappropriate target under the particular facts of his case.

The court found that Marohn had an adequate opportunity to raise his federal constitutional arguments in the administrative proceeding and, if unsuccessful, to seek review in the Minnesota Court of Appeals. The court therefore concluded that the requirements for Younger abstention were met.

The court rejected Marohn’s argument that an exception applied because the statute was patently and flagrantly unconstitutional. That exception is limited to statutes that are plainly unconstitutional in every application. The court concluded that Marohn had not shown that section 326.02 was unconstitutional in every possible application, particularly because his complaint raised an as-applied challenge rather than a challenge to the statute in all circumstances.

The court also rejected the bad-faith exception. Marohn alleged that the enforcement action retaliated against his political speech, but the court found that he had pleaded no facts showing Board animus or retaliation. The Board members’ statements expressing concern about his use of the title did not establish bad faith.

Disposition

The court abstained from adjudicating the action, granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss, and dismissed the action without prejudice. Because it abstained, Judge John R. Tunheim did not decide whether section 326.02 violated Marohn’s First Amendment rights or whether his complaint stated a claim for relief.