[The-Lacanalyst] Regulations in the USA

Sun Sep 28 20:49:19 UTC 2025

Greetings everyone,

It is wonderful to be back in the fold(s)! I am looking forward to this
update while recommending caution due to the following existing
information. BTW - not starting a debate nor taking any sides on this
matter whatsoever, but I want all to be updated with the most current
developments in CA regarding the term and practice of "psychoanalysis."
-Kristopher

**********************
In California, the Board of Psychology (BOP) protects against unlicensed
psychoanalysis by defining it as a form of psychology, which requires state
licensure. While a "research psychoanalyst" designation has existed, recent
legislation transferred the regulation of this limited license to the BOP
to better protect the public. [1
<https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/228/1043/478769/>,
2
<https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/228/1043/478769/>,
3
<https://www.mbc.ca.gov/Licensing/research-psychoanalyst/#:~:text=What%20is%20the%20timeline%20for%20the%20transfer?,and%20the%20regulation%20of%20research%20psychoanalytic%20institutions.>,
4 <https://www.psychology.ca.gov/laws_regs/sb_815.shtml>]

Psychoanalysis as a form of psychology

   - California's Business and Professions Code includes "psychoanalysis"
   under its definition of the "practice of psychology".
   - Under state law, anyone who represents themselves to the public as a
   psychoanalyst and receives a fee for services must be a licensed
   psychologist or meet other specified statutory criteria. [1
   <https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/228/1043/478769/>,
   5
   <https://content.next.westlaw.com/practical-law/document/I644487bc798e11d98c82a53fc8ac8757/National-Ass-n-for-Advancement-of-Psychoanalysis-v-California-Bd-of-Psychology?viewType=FullText&transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)>
   ]

The "Research Psychoanalyst" exception

   - A limited practice: For years, a special "research psychoanalyst"
   license was regulated by the California Medical Board. It allowed certain
   graduates of approved psychoanalytic institutes to practice on a limited
   basis, as an "adjunct to teaching, training, or research".
   - Restrictions: These individuals could not spend more than one-third of
   their professional time on fee-based services and had to primarily be
   engaged in teaching, training, or research. [2
   <https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/228/1043/478769/>,
   6 <https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/pro_lic/naap_v_ca.htm>, 7
   <https://www.reddit.com/r/psychoanalysis/comments/1gpocdo/how_to_practice_psychoanalysis_in_california/>,
   8
   <https://www.reddit.com/r/psychoanalysis/comments/1gpocdo/how_to_practice_psychoanalysis_in_california/#:~:text=It's%20true%2C%20in%20CA%20if%20you%20have,with%20aka%20training%20at%20an%20accredited%20institute.>
   ]

The 2025 regulatory transfer

   - New oversight: Effective January 1, 2025, control of the Research
   Psychoanalyst Program was transferred from the Medical Board of California
   to the California Board of Psychology.
   - Consumer protection: The BOP's 2024–2028 strategic plan outlines the
   addition of research psychoanalysts to its regulated population. This move
   is intended to place all mental health practitioners under the oversight of
   a board specifically focused on psychological services, ensuring better
   public protection. [3
   <https://www.mbc.ca.gov/Licensing/research-psychoanalyst/#:~:text=What%20is%20the%20timeline%20for%20the%20transfer?,and%20the%20regulation%20of%20research%20psychoanalytic%20institutions.>,
   4 <https://www.psychology.ca.gov/laws_regs/sb_815.shtml>, 9
   <https://www.psychology.ca.gov/forms_pubs/strat_plan_24_28.pdf>]

Legal challenges to the licensing scheme
The BOP has successfully defended its licensing authority against legal
challenges from psychoanalysts.

   - In the case *National Association for the Advancement of
   Psychoanalysis v. California Board of Psychology* (2000), a federal
   court rejected arguments that the licensing laws violated the First and
   Fourteenth Amendments.
   - The court found that the state's regulation of mental health
   professions is a valid exercise of its power to protect the public health
   and safety. [6 <https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/pro_lic/naap_v_ca.htm>,
   10 <https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/pro_lic/NAAP_v_CA_brief.htm>, 11
   <https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/pro_lic/naap_v_ca.htm>, 12
   <https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press-docs/ChilesvSalazar_AmiciStatesBrief.pdf>
   ]

[1]
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/228/1043/478769/
[2]
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/228/1043/478769/
[3] https://www.mbc.ca.gov/Licensing/research-psychoanalyst/
<https://www.mbc.ca.gov/Licensing/research-psychoanalyst/#:~:text=What%20is%20the%20timeline%20for%20the%20transfer?,and%20the%20regulation%20of%20research%20psychoanalytic%20institutions.>
[4] https://www.psychology.ca.gov/laws_regs/sb_815.shtml
[5]
https://content.next.westlaw.com/practical-law/document/I644487bc798e11d98c82a53fc8ac8757/National-Ass-n-for-Advancement-of-Psychoanalysis-v-California-Bd-of-Psychology?viewType=FullText&transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)
[6] https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/pro_lic/naap_v_ca.htm
[7]
https://www.reddit.com/r/psychoanalysis/comments/1gpocdo/how_to_practice_psychoanalysis_in_california/
[8]
https://www.reddit.com/r/psychoanalysis/comments/1gpocdo/how_to_practice_psychoanalysis_in_california/
<https://www.reddit.com/r/psychoanalysis/comments/1gpocdo/how_to_practice_psychoanalysis_in_california/#:~:text=It's%20true%2C%20in%20CA%20if%20you%20have,with%20aka%20training%20at%20an%20accredited%20institute.>
[9] https://www.psychology.ca.gov/forms_pubs/strat_plan_24_28.pdf
[10] https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/pro_lic/NAAP_v_CA_brief.htm
[11] https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/pro_lic/naap_v_ca.htm
[12]
https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press-docs/ChilesvSalazar_AmiciStatesBrief.pdf

*********************************************

On Sun, Sep 28, 2025 at 1:42 AM Jacques B. Siboni via The-lacanalyst <
the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote:

> Dear colleagues
>
> Yesterday at a day to give a tribute to Jean-Michel Vappereau
> I had the pleasure to reconnect to Scully-Robert Groom, a colleague
> living partly in Berlin and Los Angeles. He gave me great
> legal information regarding the legal statute of psychoanalysis in the USA.
> I discovered that except for New York State and Massachusetts, the
> statute is similar to France's!! Anyone in the 48 other states can
> decide they work as psychoanalysts as a private practice. They can put
> a placard saying so in front of their office.
>
> I have registered him on the lacanalyst mailing list. Robert can you be
> kind enough to explain the situation which is so seriously misunderstood
> by psychoanalysts in the US.
>
> Tell us
>
> Cheers
>
> Jacques
>
>
> --
> The-lacanalyst mailing list
> The-lacanalyst at lutecium.org
> https://lutecium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/the-lacanalyst
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lutecium.org/pipermail/the-lacanalyst/attachments/20250928/eb27b3fe/attachment.htm>