[The-Lacanalyst] Regulations in the USA

[John Gasperoni]

Kristopher,

This has been my understanding for as well. 

john 

Sent from my iPad

> On Sep 28, 2025, at 1:49 PM, Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA via The-lacanalyst <the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote:
> 
> 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, 2, 3, 4]
> 
> 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, 5]
> 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, 6, 7, 8]
> 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, 4, 9]
> 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, 10, 11, 12]
> [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/
> [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/
> [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
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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/c1dcf86f/attachment-0006.htm>