William J. Ohle (OSB 913866)†
SCHWABE, WILLIAMSON & WYATT PC
PacWest Center
1211 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 1900
Portland, OR 97204
Phone: (503) 222-9981
E-mail: wohle@schwabe.com
Samuel B. Gedge (VA Bar No. 80387)*
INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE
901 North Glebe Road, Suite 900
Arlington, VA 22203
Phone: (703) 682-9320
E-mail: sgedge@ij.org
Wesley Hottot (WA Bar No. 47539)*
INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE
10500 NE 8th Street, Suite 1760
Bellevue, WA 98004
Phone: (425) 646-9300
E-mail: whottot@ij.org
Attorneys for Plaintiff
† Designated local counsel
* Applications for admission pro hac vice filed concurrently

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
PORTLAND DIVISION
MATS JÄRLSTRÖM,

Case No.: __________________

Plaintiff,
v.
CHRISTOPHER D. ALDRIDGE, WILLIAM J.
BOYD, DAREN L. CONE, SHELLY MC
DUQUETTE, JASON J. KENT, LOGAN T.
MILES, RON SINGH, DAVE M. VAN DYKE,
SEAN W. ST. CLAIR, AMIN WAHAB, and

COMPLAINT
Civil Rights Action
(42 U.S.C. § 1983)

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - 1

 OSCAR J. ZUNIGA JR., in their official
capacities as members of the Oregon State Board
of Examiners for Engineering and Land Surveying,
Defendants.
INTRODUCTION
1.

This is a civil-rights lawsuit to vindicate the right of Plaintiff Mats Järlström to

talk and write freely without fear of government punishment. Järlström wants to write and speak
publicly about a matter of local, state, and nationwide concern: the safety and fairness of traffic
lights and traffic-light cameras. Specifically, Järlström wishes to communicate about the
mathematics behind traffic-light timing. If he does so in Oregon, however, he will be exposed to
government investigation and punishment for engaging in the unlicensed “practice of
engineering.” In fact, between February 2015 and January 2017, Järlström was investigated and
fined for “critiquing” the standard formula for calculating traffic-light timing and for sharing his
ideas with “members of the public.” Under Oregon’s Professional Engineer Registration Act
(Act), Or. Rev. Stat. §§ 672.002 et seq., only state-licensed professional engineers are entitled to
speak publicly on these sorts of topics. For everyone else—in the words of the Oregon State
Board of Examiners for Engineering and Land Surveying (Board)—sharing “reports,
commentary, and testimony” on technical subjects is “clearly not protected speech.” See, e.g.,
Final Order by Default, In the Matter of: Dale La Forest, Case No. 2697 (Aug. 14, 2015). But
speech like Järlström’s is exactly what the First Amendment’s Speech and Petition Clauses exist
to protect.
2.

This lawsuit also challenges a second aspect of the Act. Not only does the Act

create a government-run monopoly on engineering concepts generally, its “title law” imposes a
ban on who can describe themselves using the word “engineer.” This content-based ban was

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - 2

 deployed against Järlström based on e-mails he sent to, among others, media outlets and the
Board itself. The title law has also given rise to government investigations based on speech on
personal websites and in voter guides, political ads, and even the “Oregon Woman 2015” edition
of Portland Monthly. But the government does not have the power to take speech that is
objectively true, declare it false, and then punish speakers who—wittingly or unwittingly—
deviate from the government’s idiosyncratic definition. Because the title law does just that, it,
too, violates the First Amendment. Järlström thus brings this federal civil-rights lawsuit to
vindicate his and others’ constitutional right to speak out on any topic—however complex it may
be—and to describe themselves truthfully using the word “engineer.”
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
3.

Plaintiff Mats Järlström brings this civil-rights lawsuit pursuant to the Civil

Rights Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 22012202, for violations of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
4.

Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief against Oregon’s ban on his

discussion of technical topics and Oregon’s ban on his describing himself using the word
“engineer,” which are set forth in the Oregon Professional Engineer Registration Act, Or. Rev.
Stat. §§ 672.002, et seq., and Or. Admin. Rs. 820-010-0730 and 820-040-0030.
5.

This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343, and 2201-2202, and

42 U.S.C. § 1983.
6.

Venue lies in this District under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because Defendants reside in

this District and a substantial part of the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred in this
District.

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - 3

 7.

Pursuant to Local Rule 3-2(a), divisional venue is proper in this Division because

a substantial part of the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred in Washington County.
PARTIES
8.

Plaintiff Mats Järlström is a resident of Washington County, Oregon. He is a

citizen of the Kingdom of Sweden and a lawful permanent resident of the United States.
9.

Defendants Christopher D. Aldridge, William J. Boyd, Daren L. Cone, Shelly MC

Duquette, Jason J. Kent, Logan T. Miles, Ron Singh, Dave M. Van Dyke, Sean W. St. Clair,
Amin Wahab, and Oscar J. Zuniga Jr., are members of the Oregon State Board of Examiners for
Engineering and Land Surveying, the agency charged with administering and enforcing the
Professional Engineer Registration Act, Or. Rev. Stat. §§ 672.002 et seq., and implementing
regulations. They are sued in their official capacities.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
I.

MATS JÄRLSTRÖM SHARES HIS IDEAS ABOUT TRAFFIC LIGHTS.
10.

In May 2013, Mats Järlström’s wife drove her Volkswagen through the

intersection of Allen Boulevard and Lombard Avenue in Beaverton, Oregon. Based on the redlight camera in use there, she later received a ticket in the mail.
11.

The ticket his wife received sparked Järlström’s fascination with traffic-light

12.

Järlström is a Swedish-born and -educated electronics engineer.

13.

Järlström has the equivalent of an American Bachelor of Science in electrical

timing.

engineering.
14.

In Sweden, Järlström served as an airplane-camera mechanic with the Swedish

Air Force, and he worked in research and development for Luxor Electronics.

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - 4

 15.

Järlström moved to the United States in 1992, and he has lived in Oregon for

more than 20 years. In the early 1990s, he headed the electronics department at Triad Speakers,
in Portland, where he helped design a new line of professional and consumer products, such as
satellite speakers and powered subwoofers for audio and home-theater use. Currently, he is selfemployed, testing audio products as well as repairing, upgrading, and calibrating test
instruments.
16.

For the past three years, Järlström has devoted his spare time to studying traffic

lights and analyzing mathematical issues involved with traffic-light timing.
17.

In Järlström’s view, the accepted mathematical formula for calculating the

duration of yellow lights (dating back to 1959) is incomplete. In effect, the formula accounts
only for drivers who respond to a yellow light either by stopping or by continuing straight
through the intersection, but the formula does not account for the extra time it takes for drivers to
slow down before, for example, making a legal right-hand turn.
18.

Järlström has expressed his ideas on traffic lights in various ways, including by

writing to local and national media outlets, policymakers, and other people who are interested in
traffic-light issues.
19.

A number of people have expressed interest in his ideas.

20.

For example, Järlström has corresponded with Dr. Alexei Maradudin, one of the

physicists who developed the original formula in 1959.
21.

In 2016, a local television station ran two pieces about Järlström and his theories.

22.

Also in 2016, Järlström presented his findings in Los Angeles, at the conference

of the Institute of Transportation Engineers.

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - 5

 23.

Among those with whom Järlström shared his ideas was the Oregon State Board

of Examiners for Engineering and Land Surveying (Board).
24.

In the first of several e-mails that the Board would later deem unlawful, Järlström

sent a message on September 3, 2014, to the Board’s general e-mail address.
25.

In that e-mail, Järlström wrote: “I would like to have your support and help to

investigate and present the laws of physics related to transportation engineering in the State of
Oregon,” and he offered to present his theories to the Board “for your review and comments.”
26.

A Board investigator responded two days later.

27.

The Board investigator told Järlström that the Board has no authority over traffic

lights but that the Board does have authority over engineering laws, and that Järlström was
breaking those laws by “use of the title ‘electronics engineer’ and the statement ‘I’m an
engineer.’”
28.

Järlström is not a licensed professional engineer in Oregon or any other

jurisdiction.
29.

Because Järlström is not an Oregon-licensed professional engineer, the Board

investigator warned Järlström to “stop any further references until you become registered with
the Board.”
30.

A true and correct copy of the Board investigator’s September 5, 2014 e-mail is

attached as Exhibit 1 to this Complaint.
31.

Over the following months, Järlström continued to publicize his ideas on traffic-

light timing.

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - 6

 32.

On January 13, 2015, for example, Järlström sent an e-mail to, among others, a

representative of the National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying, the 60
Minutes news program, and Dr. Maradudin.
33.

Järlström’s January 13, 2015 e-mail asserted that he had developed a

mathematical formula that he believed would serve as a better basis for timing yellow traffic
lights, and he attached a document describing his formula.
34.

Järlström also sent his January 13, 2015 e-mail to the Board investigator with

whom he had corresponded.
35.

No one at the Board responded to Järlström’s January 13, 2015 e-mail.

36.

On January 15, 2015, Järlström sent an e-mail to representatives of KOIN 6, a

local news station.
37.

Järlström’s January 15, 2015 e-mail introduced himself as “a Swedish engineer

living in Beaverton.” Järlström’s e-mail further stated that he had “developed an improved
traffic light change interval timing formula” and included a document detailing his formula.
38.

Järlström forwarded the e-mail he had sent to KOIN 6 to the Board investigator.

In a cover message, Järlström explained that “[y]ou might enjoy seeing this too” and stated “I’m
an excellent engineer . . . .”
39.

No one at the Board responded to Järlström’s January 15, 2015 e-mail.

40.

On March 6, 2015, Järlström e-mailed the Sheriff of Washington County. He

wrote, “I have researched the yellow light timing issues for almost two years now and I have
actually invented and publicly released a new extended solution to the original problem with the
amber signal light in traffic flow which was first solved in 1959.” He included a chart
illustrating that the majority of red-light-camera tickets issued by the City of Beaverton captured

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - 7

 drivers turning right on red, which, in Järlström’s view, demonstrated that “the yellow lights are
too short for a vehicle making a safe right hand turn.”
41.

Järlström forwarded this March 6, 2015 e-mail to, among others, the Board’s

general e-mail address.
42.

No one at the Board responded to Järlström’s March 6, 2015 e-mail.

43.

Unbeknownst to Järlström, the Board had opened a “law enforcement case”

against him a month earlier. On February 12, 2015, the Board’s Law Enforcement Committee
voted to investigate Järlström for the unlicensed practice of engineering and for illegally
describing himself using the word “engineer.”
II.

ENGINEERING LICENSURE IN OREGON.
44.

Like every other state in the nation, Oregon regulates “professional engineers.”

These are the specialists who, for instance, design the HVAC plan for a hospital or the plumbing
system for a courthouse. Unusually, however, Oregon’s Professional Engineer Registration Act
(Act), Or. Rev. Stat. §§ 672.002 et seq., also restricts and punishes ordinary people for their most
basic acts of civic engagement and political speech.
45.

Oregon regulates professional engineering through the Act and rules and

regulations promulgated pursuant to the Act.
46.

Violating the Act may give rise to $1,000 in civil penalties, $6,250 in criminal

fines, and up to one year in jail. Id. §§ 672.325 (civil penalties), 672.991 (designating unlicensed
practice of engineering a Class A misdemeanor), 161.615 (terms of imprisonment), 161.635
(criminal fines).
47.

The Act provides that “no person shall practice or offer to practice engineering in

this state unless the person is registered and has a valid certificate to practice engineering issued
under ORS 672.002 to 672.325.” Id. § 672.020(1). Similarly, the Act provides that “[a] person
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - 8

 may not . . . [e]ngage in the practice of engineering . . . without having a valid certificate or
permit to so practice issued in accordance with ORS 672.002 to 672.325.” Id. § 672.045(1).
And implementing regulations likewise provide that “[u]nless registered as a professional
engineer in Oregon, no persons may . . . [o]ffer to practice engineering; or . . . [e]ngage in the
practice of engineering.” Or. Admin. R. 820-010-0730(3)(b)-(c).
48.

Under the Act, “[a] person is practicing or offering to practice engineering if the

person . . . [p]urports to be able to perform, or who does perform, any service or work that is
defined by ORS 672.005 as the practice of engineering.” Or. Rev. Stat. § 672.007(1)(c).
49.

In turn, Section 672.005 defines “‘[p]ractice of engineering’ or ‘practice of

professional engineering’” to include the following:
(a)

Performing any professional service or creative work requiring engineering
education, training and experience.

(b)

Applying special knowledge of the mathematical, physical and engineering
sciences to such professional services or creative work as consultation,
investigation, testimony, evaluation, planning, design and services during
construction, manufacture or fabrication for the purpose of ensuring compliance
with specifications and design, in connection with any public or private utilities,
structures, buildings, machines, equipment, processes, works or projects.

Id. § 672.005(1)(a)-(b); see also Or. Admin. R. 820-040-0030 (defining “traffic engineering” to
include “[t]he use of algorithms for the operation of traffic control system” and “the science of
analysis, review, and application of traffic data systems”).
50.

Separately, the Act restricts who can describe themselves publicly using the word

“engineer.”

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - 9

 51.

Under the Act, “‘[e]ngineer,’ ‘professional engineer’ or ‘registered professional

engineer’ means an individual who is registered in this state and holds a valid certificate to
practice engineering in this state as provided under ORS 672.002 to 672.325.” Or. Rev. Stat.
§ 672.002(2).
52.

A person is deemed to be “practicing or offering to practice engineering if the

person”:
(a)

By verbal claim, sign, advertisement, letterhead, card or in any other way implies
that the person is or purports to be a registered professional engineer;

(b)

Through the use of some other title implies that the person is an engineer or a
registered professional engineer; or

(c)

Purports to be able to perform, or who does perform, any service or work that is
defined by ORS 672.005 as the practice of engineering.

Id. § 672.007(1).
53.

And “no person shall practice or offer to practice engineering in this state unless

the person is registered and has a valid certificate to practice engineering issued under ORS
672.002 to 672.325.” Id. § 672.020(1). Likewise, the Act provides that “[a] person may
not . . . [f]alsely represent, by any means, that the person is authorized to practice engineering,”
id. § 672.045(2), and implementing regulations provide that “[u]nless registered as a professional
engineer in Oregon, no persons may . . . [h]old themselves out as an ‘engineer’ other than as
described in subsection (1) of this rule or in ORS 672.060.” Or. Admin. R. 820-010-0730(3)(a).
54.

Together, Or. Rev. Stat. §§ 672.002(2), 672.007(1), 672.020(1), and 672.045(2)

and Or. Admin. R. 820-010-0730(3) make it illegal for someone who is not a licensed

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - 10

 professional engineer to publicly describe themselves in the State of Oregon using the word
“engineer.”
55.

As the Oregon Attorney General has warned, “using a title which implies that a

person is an ‘engineer’ rather than a registered professional engineer nonetheless constitutes the
‘practice of engineering,’ which is prohibited without registration.” Or. Op. Att’y Gen.
OP-5483, 1983 WL 165673 (1983).
56.

Or. Rev. Stat. §§ 672.002(2), 672.007(1), 672.020(1), and 672.045(2) and Or.

Admin. R. 820-010-0730(3) are sometimes referred to as the “title law.”
57.

The title law has given rise to at least two Board investigations based on the

content of voter pamphlets.
58.

The title law has given rise to a Board investigation based on the content of court

testimony.
59.

The title law has given rise to a Board investigation based on the content of a

complaint letter sent to the Board.
60.

The title law has given rise to a Board investigation based on the content of a

political advertisement.
61.

The title law has given rise to a Board investigation based on the content of an

article in the “Oregon Woman 2015” edition of Portland Monthly.
III.

THE BOARD INVESTIGATES JÄRLSTRÖM AND FINES HIM $500.
62.

After voting to open an investigation against Järlström in February 2015, the

Board sent notice to Järlström nearly two months later.
63.

On March 30, 2015, a Board investigator notified Järlström of the investigation

and informed him that “the allegations are that you . . . continued to use the title ‘engineer’ in
your communications with Board staff and, of more concern, are the documents you provided
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - 11

 that indicate you may have engaged in unlicensed engineering work in Oregon.” The notice
invited Järlström to send a written response, “to provide the Board with information from your
perspective . . . .”
64.

A true and correct copy of the Board’s March 30, 2015 notice to Järlström

(without enclosures) is attached as Exhibit 2 to this Complaint.
65.

In an April 6, 2015 e-mail to the Board investigator, Järlström replied that he had

previously sought to clarify the Professional Engineer Registration Act’s application to him but
had received no response from the Board at that time. He further stated that, based on his view
of Oregon law, “you should understand why I am exempt from needing to be a licensed
Professional Engineer, PE in the State of Oregon and why I can call myself an ‘Engineer.’”
66.

On April 13, 2015, Järlström sent a further response to the Board. In part, this

response detailed his “efforts to communicate, cooperate, and inquire with [the Board] regarding
how to come into compliance with Oregon law.”
67.

Järlström attached as exhibits to his April 13, 2015 response several previous

e-mails he had sent to the Board’s representatives. Included in those e-mails were a number of
documents detailing Järlström’s mathematical theories relating to traffic-light timing.
68.

After acknowledging receipt of Järlström’s responses, the Board did not contact

Järlström again for more than a year.
69.

In August 2016—18 months after voting to investigate Järlström—the Board’s

Law Enforcement Committee voted to assess Järlström a $500 penalty.
70.

About two and a half months later, the Board sent Järlström a Notice of Intent to

Assess Civil Penalty.

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - 12

 71.

A true and correct copy of the Board’s Notice of Intent to Assess Civil Penalty,

dated November 1, 2016, is attached as Exhibit 3 to this Complaint.
72.

The November 1, 2016 Notice of Intent to Assess Civil Penalty for the first time

detailed why the Board believed Järlström’s e-mails had violated the Act.
73.

By sending e-mails talking about his traffic-light theories, the Board said,

Järlström violated two separate statutory prohibitions on several occasions, both by talking about
engineering-related subjects and by stating (or, in some instances, merely implying) that he was
an “engineer.”
74.

First, the Notice of Intent to Assess Civil Penalty stated, circulating his theories

about traffic lights amounted to the unlicensed practice of engineering, a violation of Or. Rev.
Stat. §§ 672.020(1) and 672.045(1) and Or. Admin. R. 820-010-0730(3)(c).
75.

The Board stated that Järlström engaged in the unlicensed practice of engineering

by sending five different e-mails:
a.

Järlström’s first e-mail to the Board, in which he explained that he was

researching traffic-light issues and expressed general concerns with traffic-light timing in
Oregon.
b.

Järlström’s January 13, 2015 e-mail to the National Council of Examiners

for Engineering and Surveying, Dr. Maradudin, 60 Minutes, and the Board investigator. The
Board reasoned that “[b]y reviewing, critiquing, and altering an engineered ITE [Institute of
Transportation Engineers] formula and submitting the critique and calculations for his modified
version of the ITE formula to members of the public for consideration and modification of
Beaverton, Oregon’s and ‘worldwide’ traffic signals, which signals are public equipment,
processes and works, Jarlstrom applied special knowledge of the mathematical, physical and

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - 13

 engineering sciences to such creative work as investigation, evaluation, and design in connection
with public equipment, processes and works.” In this way, “Jarlstrom thereby engaged in the
practice of engineering under ORS 672.005(1)(b).” The Notice of Intent to Assess Civil Penalty
further stated that “[b]y doing so through the use of algorithms for the operation of traffic control
systems, and through the use of the science of analysis, review, and application of traffic data
systems to advise members of the public on the treatment of the functional characteristics of
traffic signal timing, Jarlstrom engaged, specifically, in traffic engineering under OAR 820-0400030(1)(b) and (2)(a).” The Notice of Intent to Assess Civil Penalty thus concluded that “[b]y
engaging the [sic] practice of engineering (specifically, traffic engineering) without registration,
Jarlstrom violated ORS 672.020(1), 672.045(1) and OAR 820-010-0730(3)(c) on a second
occasion.”
c.

Järlström’s January 15, 2015 e-mail to the KOIN 6 news station, which he

forwarded to the Board investigator. As before, the Board reasoned, “[b]y again providing the
public with his traffic engineering calculations for the modification of Beaverton’s traffic signal
timing Jarlstrom again engaged in the practice of engineering and, specifically, the practice of
traffic engineering.”
d.

Järlström’s March 6, 2015 e-mail to the Sheriff of Washington County.

The Board charged that “[b]y providing his ‘publicly released’ traffic engineering calculations to
the sheriff of the county where he advised changes in traffic signals, Jarlstrom again . . . did
engage in, the practice of engineering.”
e.

Järlström’s response to the Board’s March 30, 2015 notice of

investigation. “Jarlstrom attached a paper he wrote to the email,” and, in the Board’s view, that
paper “opined that the Institute of Transportation Engineers made an error in the calculation on

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - 14

 which its change interval formula is based.” “[B]y providing an engineering analysis and
critique of an engineered traffic signal formula, all to a public a [sic] body,” the Board stated,
Järlström engaged in the unlicensed practice of engineering for a fifth time.
76.

Apart from identifying five instances in which Järlström engaged in the

unlicensed practice of engineering, the Board noted that Järlström had separately broken the title
law, which bans people who are not licensed professional engineers from describing themselves
using the word “engineer”:
a.

Because Järlström’s original e-mail to the Board indicated that he was

studying traffic lights, the Board stated, he “purported to be able to perform engineering services
or work and represented that he was authorized to perform engineering work.”
b.

Järlström broke the title law a second time, the Board said, when he

introduced himself to the KOIN 6 news station by saying “I’m a Swedish engineer” and when he
sent the Board an e-mail calling himself “an excellent engineer.” “By asserting to a public body
in correspondence that he is an (‘excellent’) engineer, and asserting to the public media in
correspondence that he is a (‘Swedish’) engineer,” the Board said, “Jarlstrom held himself out as,
and implied that he is, an engineer.”
c.

Even though he did not describe himself as an “engineer” when he

e-mailed the Washington County Sheriff, the Board said Järlström violated the title law a third
time because he “again purported to be authorized to engage in . . . the practice of engineering”
by talking confidently about traffic lights.
d.

Lastly, the Board stated that Järlström violated the title law in his April 6,

2015 e-mail to the Board investigator by disputing that the title law applied to him.

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - 15

 77.

All told, the Board’s November 1, 2016 Notice of Intent to Assess Civil Penalty

listed nine separate violations of the Professional Engineer Registration Act.
78.

The Notice of Intent to Assess Civil Penalty advised Järlström that the Board

intended to assess a total penalty of $500. But it also made clear that “the Agency may impose a
maximum civil penalty of $1,000 per violation against Jarlstrom without amending its notice.”
79.

Järlström paid the $500 penalty.

80.

After nearly another two months, the Board closed its investigation.

81.

A true and correct copy of the Final Order by Default, dated January 10, 2017, is

attached as Exhibit 4 to this Complaint.
82.

The Final Order stated that Järlström violated the engineering-practice law and

title law in precisely the manner alleged by the Board, as set forth in Paragraphs 74 and 77.
IV.

INJURY TO JÄRLSTRÖM
83.

Before the Board issued its Notice of Intent to Assess Civil Penalty against him,

Järlström was engaged in a public debate about an issue of local, state, and national
importance—the safety, accuracy, and fairness of traffic lights.
84.

This is an issue that Järlström cares about deeply.

85.

To engage in discourse about this issue fully and effectively, Järlström must be

able to communicate information and opinions publicly and attempt to persuade people that his
ideas have merit.
86.

In Washington County, in Oregon more broadly, and elsewhere, Järlström would

like to convey his ideas to the academic and scientific communities, to policymakers and
government agencies, and to the public at large.

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - 16

 87.

Based on positive feedback he received at the 2016 Institute of Transportation

Engineers meeting, Järlström began work on a paper about his theories, which is intended for
publication in the ITE Journal or another academic journal. He is currently about 85 percent
done with his work on this paper.
88.

Järlström would like to publish his paper as soon as possible. But he is refraining

from engaging in the speech described above because speaking would expose him to further
punishment under the Act.
89.

Järlström wishes to speak and write publicly—including in his home state of

Oregon—on his ideas and theories about traffic-light timing. But as long as Or. Rev. Stat.
§§ 672.005(1)(a)-(b), 672.007(1), 672.020(1), and 672.045(1) and Or. Admin. Rs. 820-0100730(3) and 820-040-0030 remain in place, his speech is chilled—and outright prohibited.
90.

If Järlström speaks out as described above, he risks further Board investigations

and punishment.
91.

As the Board’s history of investigating and fining him and others demonstrates,

Järlström is threatened by the future applications of Or. Rev. Stat. §§ 672.005(1)(a)-(b),
672.007(1), 672.020(1), and 672.045(1) and Or. Admin. Rs. 820-010-0730(3) and 820-040-0030
to his speech. If Järlström speaks out as he would like to, he faces a genuine threat of
investigation and punishment.
92.

Or. Rev. Stat. §§ 672.005(1)(a)-(b), 672.007(1), 672.020(1), and 672.045(1) and

Or. Admin. Rs. 820-010-0730(3) and 820-040-0030 thus prohibit and prevent Järlström from
speaking and writing publicly about his ideas relating to traffic lights, and these laws are enough
to chill or silence other persons of ordinary firmness from speaking out on similar topics of
public note.

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - 17

 93.

Before the Board issued its Notice of Intent to Assess Civil Penalty against him,

Järlström regularly described himself using the word “engineer.”
94.

Järlström is proud of having graduated with the equivalent of a Bachelor of

Science in electrical engineering.
95.

He is also proud of his experience working in technical fields with the Swedish

Air Force and Luxor Electronics abroad and with Triad Speakers here in Oregon.
96.

Describing his educational background, experience, and skills using the word

“engineer” is an important part of Järlström’s professional and personal identity.
97.

For example, if Järlström could publish his writings about traffic-light timing

without fear of government enforcement, he would describe himself as an “engineer” in the
biographical stub associated with those writings. Because that speech would expose him to
punishment under the Professional Engineer Registration Act, however, he is refraining from
engaging in that speech.
98.

Järlström would also like to describe himself as an “engineer” when

communicating with the media, the academic and scientific communities, policymakers,
government officials, and the public at large about topics like traffic-light timing, both in Oregon
and elsewhere. Because that speech would expose him to punishment under the Professional
Engineer Registration Act, however, he is refraining from engaging in that speech.
99.

Järlström would also like to describe himself publicly as an “engineer” when

discussing other technical topics. But, again, because doing so would expose him to punishment
under the Act, he is refraining from engaging in that speech.
100.

As the Board’s history of investigating him and others demonstrates, Järlström is

threatened with future enforcement of Or. Rev. Stat. §§ 672.002(2), 672.007(1), 672.020(1), and

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - 18

 672.045(2) and Or. Admin. R. 820-010-0730(3). If Järlström describes himself publicly using
the word “engineer,” he faces a genuine threat of investigation and punishment.
101.

So long as Or. Rev. Stat. §§ 672.002(2), 672.007(1), 672.020(1), and 672.045(2)

and Or. Admin. R. 820-010-0730(3) remain in place, Järlström’s use of the word “engineer” is
chilled—and outright prohibited—because publicly describing himself as an “engineer” puts him
at risk of future investigations and punishment.
102.

Or. Rev. Stat. §§ 672.002(2), 672.007(1), 672.020(1), and 672.045(2) and Or.

Admin. R. 820-010-0730(3) thus prohibit and prevent Järlström from describing himself publicly
using the word “engineer,” and these laws are enough to chill or silence other persons of
ordinary firmness from speaking in this way.
CAUSES OF ACTION
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
(Oregon’s engineering-practice law violates the First Amendment’s Speech Clause)
103.

Plaintiff Järlström reasserts and realleges paragraphs 1 through 102 as if fully set

forth herein.
104.

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution provides, in relevant part,

that “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech.”
105.

The First Amendment is incorporated against the State of Oregon through the

Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
106.

Speaking and writing about technical topics—including the mathematics behind

traffic lights—is fully protected speech under the First Amendment and does not fall within any
historically recognized exception to the First Amendment.
107.

Both facially and as applied, Or. Rev. Stat. §§ 672.005(1)(a)-(b), 672.007(1),

672.020(1), and 672.045(1) and Or. Admin. Rs. 820-010-0730(3) and 820-040-0030 prohibit

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - 19

 Järlström from writing and speaking publicly about his ideas relating to the mathematics behind
traffic lights. This is a content-based restriction on speech.
108.

As the Board’s past enforcement has demonstrated, Or. Rev. Stat.

§§ 672.005(1)(a)-(b), 672.007(1), 672.020(1), and 672.045(1) and Or. Admin. Rs. 820-0100730(3) and 820-040-0030 prohibit everything from “critiquing” traffic-light formulas to writing
and speaking about “algorithms” relating to traffic lights.
109.

Defendants lack a state interest, compelling or otherwise, in banning Järlström

from speaking and writing publicly about his ideas relating to the mathematics behind traffic
lights.
110.

Defendants’ ban of Järlström’s speech is not sufficiently tailored to any state

interest, much less a compelling state interest, in preventing people from hearing and reading
about Järlström’s ideas.
111.

Defendants’ ban of Järlström’s speech is not sufficiently tailored to any other state

interest, compelling or otherwise.
112.

As applied to Järlström’s speech about the mathematics behind traffic lights, Or.

Rev. Stat. §§ 672.005(1)(a)-(b), 672.007(1), 672.020(1), and 672.045(1) and Or. Admin. Rs.
820-010-0730(3) and 820-040-0030 violate his rights under the Speech Clause of the First
Amendment.
113.

Because Or. Rev. Stat. §§ 672.005(1)(a)-(b), 672.007(1), 672.020(1), and

672.045(1) and Or. Admin. Rs. 820-010-0730(3) and 820-040-0030 create an unacceptable risk
of the suppression of ideas, these provisions are also invalid on their face under the Speech
Clause of the First Amendment.

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - 20

 114.

Unless Or. Rev. Stat. §§ 672.005(1)(a)-(b), 672.007(1), 672.020(1), and

672.045(1) and Or. Admin. Rs. 820-010-0730(3) and 820-040-0030 are declared unconstitutional
and Defendants are enjoined, Plaintiff Järlström will suffer irreparable harm in being unable to
exercise his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights to speak and write about the mathematics
behind traffic lights without fear of investigation and punishment by the Board.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
(Oregon’s engineering-practice law violates the First Amendment’s Petition Clause)
115.

Plaintiff Järlström reasserts and realleges paragraphs 1 through 114 as if fully set

forth herein.
116.

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution provides, in relevant part,

that “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging . . . the right of the people . . . to petition the
government for a redress of grievances.”
117.

Communicating with government agencies and officials about technical topics—

including the mathematics behind traffic lights—is fully protected under the First Amendment’s
Petition Clause.
118.

Both facially and as applied, Or. Rev. Stat. §§ 672.005(1)(a)-(b), 672.007(1),

672.020(1), and 672.045(1) and Or. Admin. Rs. 820-010-0730(3) and 820-040-0030 prohibit
Järlström from petitioning about his ideas relating to the mathematics behind traffic lights. This
is a content-based restriction on his right to petition.
119.

For example, as the Board’s past enforcement has demonstrated, Or. Rev. Stat.

§§ 672.005(1)(a)-(b), 672.007(1), 672.020(1) and 672.045(1) and Or. Admin. Rs. 820-0100730(3) and 820-040-0030 prohibit Järlström from expressing his concerns and ideas about
traffic lights in communications with his local sheriff and even the Board itself.

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - 21

 120.

Defendants lack a state interest, compelling or otherwise, in banning Järlström

from petitioning about his ideas relating to the mathematics behind traffic lights.
121.

Defendants’ ban of Järlström’s petitioning is not sufficiently tailored to any state

interest, much less a compelling state interest, in preventing people from hearing and reading
about Järlström’s ideas.
122.

Defendants’ ban of Järlström’s petitioning is not sufficiently tailored to any other

state interest, compelling or otherwise.
123.

As applied to Järlström’s petitioning about the mathematics behind traffic lights,

Or. Rev. Stat. §§ 672.005(1)(a)-(b), 672.007(1), 672.020(1), and 672.045(1) and Or. Admin. Rs.
820-010-0730(3) and 820-040-0030 violate his rights under the Petition Clause of the First
Amendment.
124.

Because Or. Rev. Stat. §§ 672.005(1)(a)-(b), 672.007(1), 672.020(1), and

672.045(1) and Or. Admin. Rs. 820-010-0730(3) and 820-040-0030 create an unacceptable risk
of the suppression of ideas, these provisions are also invalid on their face under the Petition
Clause of the First Amendment.
125.

Unless Or. Rev. Stat. §§ 672.005(1)(a)-(b), 672.007(1), 672.020(1), and

672.045(1) and Or. Admin. Rs. 820-010-0730(3) and 820-040-0030 are declared unconstitutional
and Defendants are enjoined, Plaintiff Järlström will suffer irreparable harm in being unable to
exercise his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights to petition about the mathematics behind
traffic lights without fear of investigation and punishment by the Board.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
(Oregon’s title law violates the First Amendment’s Speech Clause)
126.

Plaintiff Järlström reasserts and realleges paragraphs 1 through 125 as if fully set

forth herein.

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - 22

 127.

The Speech Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution

protects the right to speak freely and to publish statements about oneself.
128.

Järlström’s use of the word “engineer” when describing himself in spoken and

written statements is pure speech and does not fall within any historically recognized exception
to the First Amendment.
129.

Both facially and as applied, Or. Rev. Stat. §§ 672.002(2), 672.007(1),

672.020(1), and 672.045(2) and Or. Admin. R. 820-010-0730(3) prohibit Järlström from
describing himself as an “engineer” even though that is an entirely accurate description. This is
a content-based restriction on his speech.
130.

Defendants lack any state interest, compelling or otherwise, in preventing

Järlström from describing himself as an “engineer” in communications with the media,
policymakers, and the public at large.
131.

Defendants lack any state interest, compelling or otherwise, in preventing people

from making truthful statements about themselves in any setting, including making truthful
statements about their educational or professional credentials.
132.

Or. Rev. Stat. §§ 672.002(2), 672.007(1), 672.020(1), and 672.045(2) and Or.

Admin. R. 820-010-0730(3) are not sufficiently tailored to any other state interest, compelling or
otherwise.
133.

As applied to Järlström’s use of the word “engineer” to describe himself in

noncommercial settings, Or. Rev. Stat. §§ 672.002(2), 672.007(1), 672.020(1), and 672.045(2)
and Or. Admin. R. 820-010-0730(3) violate his rights under the Speech Clause of the First
Amendment.

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - 23

 134.

As applied to Järlström’s truthful use of the word “engineer” to describe himself

in any setting, Or. Rev. Stat. §§ 672.002(2), 672.007(1), 672.020(1), and 672.045(2) and Or.
Admin. R. 820-010-0730(3) violate his rights under the Speech Clause of the First Amendment.
135.

Because Or. Rev. Stat. §§ 672.002(2), 672.007(1), 672.020(1), and 672.045(2)

and Or. Admin. R. 820-010-0730(3) create an unacceptable risk of the suppression of ideas,
these provisions are also invalid on their face under the Speech Clause of the First Amendment.
136.

Unless Or. Rev. Stat. §§ 672.002(2), 672.007(1), 672.020(1), and 672.045(2) and

Or. Admin. R. 820-010-0730(3) are declared unconstitutional and Defendants are enjoined,
Järlström will suffer irreparable harm in being unable to exercise his First and Fourteenth
Amendment rights by using the word “engineer” to describe himself truthfully in public writings
about technical topics, in correspondence, and in other contexts.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Oregon’s title law violates the First Amendment’s Petition Clause)
137.

Plaintiff Järlström reasserts and realleges paragraphs 1 through 136 as if fully set

forth herein.
138.

The Petition Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution

protects the right to make statements about oneself when petitioning the government.
139.

Järlström’s use of the word “engineer” when describing himself while petitioning

the government is pure speech and does not fall within any historically recognized exception to
the First Amendment.
140.

Both facially and as applied, Or. Rev. Stat. §§ 672.002(2), 672.007(1),

672.020(1), and 672.045(2) and Or. Admin. R. 820-010-0730(3) prohibit Järlström from
describing himself as an “engineer”—even though that is an entirely accurate description—while
exercising his right to petition. This is a content-based restriction on his right to petition.

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - 24

 141.

Defendants lack any state interest, compelling or otherwise, in preventing

Järlström from describing himself as an “engineer” in petitioning the government.
142.

Defendants lack any state interest, compelling or otherwise, in preventing people

from making truthful statements about themselves in any setting, including making truthful
statements about their educational or professional credentials.
143.

Or. Rev. Stat. §§ 672.002(2), 672.007(1), 672.020(1), and 672.045(2) and Or.

Admin. R. 820-010-0730(3) are not sufficiently tailored to any other state interest, compelling or
otherwise.
144.

As applied to Järlström’s use of the word “engineer” to describe himself when

petitioning the government, Or. Rev. Stat. §§ 672.002(2), 672.007(1), 672.020(1), and
672.045(2) and Or. Admin. R. 820-010-0730(3) violate his rights under the Petition Clause of the
First Amendment.
145.

Because Or. Rev. Stat. §§ 672.002(2), 672.007(1), 672.020(1), and 672.045(2)

and Or. Admin. R. 820-010-0730(3) create an unacceptable risk of the suppression of ideas,
these provisions are also invalid on their face under the Petition Clause of the First Amendment.
146.

Unless Or. Rev. Stat. §§ 672.002(2), 672.007(1), 672.020(1), and 672.045(2) and

Or. Admin. R. 820-010-0730(3) are declared unconstitutional and Defendants are enjoined,
Järlström will suffer irreparable harm in being unable to exercise his First and Fourteenth
Amendment rights by using the word “engineer” to describe himself truthfully when petitioning
the government.

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - 25

 PRAYER FOR RELIEF
Plaintiff Järlström prays for judgment as follows:
A.

For entry of judgment declaring that Or. Rev. Stat. §§ 672.005(1)(a)-(b),

672.007(1), 672.020(1), and 672.045(1) and Or. Admin. Rs. 820-010-0730(3) and 820-040-0030
violate the Speech Clause of the First Amendment on their face and as applied to Plaintiff
Järlström to the extent they limit the right of persons other than Oregon-licensed professional
engineers to speak publicly and privately about technical topics, including the mathematics
behind traffic lights;
B.

For entry of judgment declaring that Or. Rev. Stat. §§ 672.005(1)(a)-(b),

672.007(1), 672.020(1), and 672.045(1) and Or. Admin. Rs. 820-010-0730(3) and 820-040-0030
violate the Petition Clause of the First Amendment on their face and as applied to Plaintiff
Järlström to the extent they limit the right of persons other than Oregon-licensed professional
engineers to petition the government about technical topics, including the mathematics behind
traffic lights;
C.

For entry of judgment declaring that Or. Rev. Stat. §§ 672.002(2), 672.007(1),

672.020(1), and 672.045(2) and Or. Admin. R. 820-010-0730(3) violate the Speech Clause of the
First Amendment on their face and as applied to Plaintiff Järlström to the extent they limit the
right of persons other than Oregon-licensed professional engineers to truthfully describe
themselves using the word “engineer”;
D.

For entry of judgment declaring that Or. Rev. Stat. §§ 672.002(2), 672.007(1),

672.020(1), and 672.045(2) and Or. Admin. R. 820-010-0730(3) violate the Petition Clause of
the First Amendment on their face and as applied to Plaintiff Järlström to the extent they limit

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - 26

 the right of persons other than Oregon-licensed professional engineers to truthfully describe
themselves using the word “engineer” while petitioning the government;
E.

For entry of judgment declaring that Or. Rev. Stat. §§ 672.002(2), 672.005(1)(a)-

(b), 672.007(1), 672.020(1), and 672.045(1)-(2) and Or. Admin. Rs. 820-010-0730(3) and
820-040-0030 are unconstitutional as-applied and on their face;
F.

For entry of preliminary and permanent injunctions against Defendants

prohibiting the enforcement of these unconstitutional statutes and regulations against Plaintiff
Järlström and other similarly situated persons;
G.

For an award of attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses in this action pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1988; and
H.

For such further legal and equitable relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - 27

 Respectfully submitted this 25th day of April, 2017.
s/ William J. Ohle
.
William J. Ohle (OSB 913866)†
Jill S. Gelineau (OSB 852088)
SCHWABE, WILLIAMSON & WYATT PC
PacWest Center
1211 SW Fifth Avenue Suite 1900
Portland, OR 97204
Phone: (503) 222-9981
Fax: (503) 796-2900
E-mail: wohle@schwabe.com
jgelineau@schwabe.com
Kelly M. Walsh (OSB 993897)
SCHWABE, WILLIAMSON & WYATT PC
700 Washington Street Suite 701
Vancouver, WA 98660
Phone: (360) 694-7551
Fax: (360) 693-5574
E-mail: kwalsh@schwabe.com

Samuel B. Gedge (VA Bar No. 80387)*
INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE
901 North Glebe Road, Suite 900
Arlington, VA 22203
Phone: (703) 682-9320
Fax: (703) 682-9321
E-mail: sgedge@ij.org
Wesley Hottot (WA Bar No. 47539)*
INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE
10500 NE 8th Street, Suite 1760
Bellevue, WA 98004
Phone: (425) 646-9300
Fax: (425) 990 6500
E-mail: whottot@ij.org
Attorneys for Plaintiff
† Designated local counsel
* Motions for admission pro hac vice filed
concurrently

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - 28