Case Title: Gray v. Department of Public Safety

Citation: 

Docket Number: 2021 ME 19

State: maine

Court: Maine Supreme Court

Date: 2021-04-06T00:00:00Z

Document:
MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT 
Reporter of Decisions 
Decision: 
2021 ME 19 
Docket: 
Ken-20-168 
Argued: 
February 10, 2021 
Decided: 
April 6, 2021 
 
Panel: 
MEAD, GORMAN, JABAR, HUMPHREY, HORTON, and CONNORS, JJ. 
 
 
JOSHUA A. GRAY 
 
v. 
 
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY 
 
 
HUMPHREY, J. 
 
[¶1]  In this appeal, we consider whether the First Amendment rights of 
an applicant for a professional license were abridged by the application of 
statutory competency standards to his conduct on social media.1 
 
[¶2]  Joshua A. Gray appeals from a judgment of the Superior Court 
(Kennebec County, Murphy, J.) affirming the Department of Public Safety’s 
denial of Gray’s application for a professional investigator license based on 
posts and comments that Gray made on social media, using an account bearing 
the name of his out-of-state private investigation business, concerning a Maine 
                                         
1  Gray raises the free speech provisions of only the United States Constitution, U.S. Const. amend. I, 
and does not make any argument regarding the Maine Constitution’s free speech protections.  See Me. 
Const. art. I, § 4; City of Bangor v. Diva’s, Inc., 2003 ME 51, ¶¶ 10-11 & n.4, 830 A.2d 898; Portland v. 
Jacobsky, 496 A.2d 646, 648-49 (Me. 1985). 
 
2 
State Police lieutenant.  Gray argues that the court erred in concluding that the 
Department had not, in denying his application, violated his free speech rights 
conferred by the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States 
Constitution.2  Although Gray challenges the determination that he acted with 
“actual malice”3 in posting and commenting on social media, we conclude that 
actual malice need not be shown and that we must apply intermediate scrutiny 
to review the licensing standards as applied to Gray here.  Applying that 
standard, we affirm the judgment. 
I.  BACKGROUND 
 
[¶3]  On January 26, 2018, Gray applied to the Department for a 
professional investigator license.  See 32 M.R.S. § 8107 (2020).  The Chief of the 
Maine State Police issued the decision of the Department denying Gray’s 
application on August 31, 2018.  See 32 M.R.S. §§ 8103(1-B), 8113 (2020).  The 
Department found that Gray had made “materially false” statements on social 
                                         
2  Gray also argues that the court abused its discretion in deciding the matter without holding oral 
argument.  Oral argument was not required by M.R. Civ. P. 80C(l), see Lindemann v. Comm’n on 
Governmental Ethics & Election Pracs., 2008 ME 187, ¶ 26, 961 A.2d 538, and we discern no abuse of 
discretion in the court’s decision not to hear oral argument before deciding the matter.  Gray did not 
bring any independent claims, and the court rejected as untimely his notice of objection to the 
record—a ruling that Gray does not challenge on appeal.  See M.R. Civ. P. 80C(f) (requiring that notice 
of an objection to the record be served on the agency within ten days after the record is filed).   
3  Statements are made with “actual malice” when they are made with knowledge that they are 
false or with reckless disregard of their truth or falsity.  N.Y. Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 279 
80 (1964); see Pickering v. Bd. of Educ., 391 U.S. 563, 573-75 (1968).   
 
3 
media, including on his private investigation business’s Facebook page, which 
cast into question Gray’s “ability to competently investigate and then report 
investigative findings with accuracy, objectivity, and without bias,” and, as a 
result, that Gray lacked the requisite competency and fitness of character to act 
as a professional investigator in Maine.   
 
[¶4]  Gray appealed to the Superior Court.  See 5 M.R.S. § 11001(1) 
(2020); M.R. Civ. P. 80C.  The court held that the Department could not deprive 
Gray of a license for having expressed himself on social media unless the 
statements he made fell outside the protection of the First Amendment.  The 
court remanded for the Department to determine whether the limited privilege 
that applies to even false statements about public figures on matters of public 
concern was overcome by a finding, by clear and convincing evidence, that Gray 
made the statements on social media with “actual malice,” meaning with 
knowledge that the statements were false or with reckless disregard of their 
truth or falsity.  N.Y. Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 279-80 (1964); see 
Pickering v. Bd. of Educ., 391 U.S. 563, 573-75 (1968).   
 
[¶5]  On remand, the Department propounded thirty-nine questions to 
Gray about certain assertions he had made using a social media account 
identifying himself as a “PI” and including the name of his Massachusetts 
 
4 
private investigation business, NSI Surveillance & Investigation.  Gray 
responded to the questions and admitted that he had made on social media 
posts and comments that stated that a Maine State Police lieutenant was 
“[p]ossibl[y] drunk” during the time of a police incident that resulted in a 
woman’s death and that the lieutenant had “murdered” the woman.  He 
asserted to the Department that the statements were opinions, not facts, and 
that when he learned that another officer—not the lieutenant whom he had 
named—had shot the woman, he provided that information on social media.  
He also admitted that he had stated on social media that the lieutenant had been 
the subject of multiple internal affairs investigations, though he again asserted 
that his statement was an expression of opinion. 
 
[¶6]  During its examination of Gray’s responses, the Department 
reviewed affidavits from (1) the lieutenant in question, who swore that he had 
not consumed alcohol on the day of the incident or at any time during his life, 
and (2) the commander of the Department’s Office of Professional Standards 
(OPS), formerly the Office of Internal Affairs, who reported that only one 
complaint had been made against the lieutenant—a complaint initiated by Gray 
that had resulted in an investigation.  The Department also considered 
 
5 
hundreds of pages of printouts of Gray’s posts and comments on social media 
and other internet platforms.   
 
[¶7]  The Department issued a second decision denying Gray’s 
application, finding that Gray had made certain statements on social media with 
actual malice—knowing that they were false or with reckless disregard of their 
truth or falsity—including statements about the lieutenant’s intoxication; 
statements that the lieutenant had “murdered,” “executed,” or “killed” the 
woman who died in the incident; and statements that the lieutenant had been 
subject to multiple complaints filed with the OPS.   
 
[¶8]  The decision also stated, however, that the actual malice standard 
did not apply because even if Gray had the right to say the things he did, he was 
not entitled to a professional license if he did not meet the competency and 
character standards for a professional investigator.  The Department found that 
Gray had reported erroneous, uninvestigated conclusions on social media, 
placing behind those conclusions “the authority of the reputation of [Gray’s] 
business” and of “the private investigator license of the State of Massachusetts.”  
The Department also found that Gray “lacks the basic competency and requisite 
good moral character” to hold a professional investigator’s license and that his 
 
6 
“communications have demonstrated a pattern of reckless disregard for the 
truth.”   
 
[¶9]  On October 28, 2019, Gray again appealed to the Superior Court by 
filing a petition for review of the Department’s denial of his application for a 
license.  See 5 M.R.S. § 11001(1); M.R. Civ. P. 80C.  The court entered a judgment 
on June 1, 2020, affirming the Department’s decision, concluding that the 
Department’s finding of actual malice was supported by the administrative 
record.  Gray timely appealed, and the Department cross-appealed.  See 5 M.R.S. 
§ 11008 (2020); M.R. App. P. 2B(c)(1).   
II.  DISCUSSION 
 
[¶10]  We review an administrative agency’s decision “directly for errors 
of law, abuse of discretion, or findings not supported by substantial evidence in 
the record.”  Palian v. Dep’t of Health & Hum. Servs., 2020 ME 131, ¶ 10, 242 A.3d 
164 (quotation marks omitted).  To conduct this review here, we will 
(A) summarize the standards governing the licensing of professional 
investigators in Maine and (B) review whether the Department, in denying 
Gray’s license application, violated the First Amendment. 
 
7 
A. 
Standards for Licensing Professional Investigators 
 
[¶11]  Licensed professional investigators in Maine are authorized to 
conduct private investigations, including by accepting consideration to obtain 
information about a crime committed in violation of the law or “[t]he identity, 
habits, 
conduct, 
movements, 
whereabouts, 
affiliations, 
associations, 
transactions, reputation or character of any person.”  32 M.R.S. § 8103(4-A)(A), 
(B) (2020).  The statutes governing the licensing of professional investigators 
in Maine establish qualifications for a license, an application process, and 
standards for denying an application.  See 32 M.R.S. §§ 8105, 8107, 8113 (2020). 
 
[¶12]  To qualify for a professional investigator license, a person must 
have “demonstrated good moral character.”  Id. § 8105(4).  The Chief of the 
Maine State Police may refuse to issue a license if an applicant is incompetent, 
meaning that the applicant “[e]ngaged in conduct that evidences a lack of ability 
or fitness to discharge the duty owed by the licensee to the client or the general 
public” or “[e]ngaged in conduct that evidences a lack of knowledge or an 
inability to apply principles or skills to carry out the practice” for which the 
person seeks the license.  Id. § 8113(6).  A license may also be denied if the 
applicant has violated “standards of acceptable professional conduct adopted 
by rule” by the Chief of the Maine State Police.  Id. § 8113(11); see 32 M.R.S. 
 
8 
§ 8103(1-B).  No standards of conduct have been adopted by rule, however,4 
meaning that the applicable standards are those provided by statute. 
B. 
First Amendment 
 
[¶13]  The construction of the First Amendment presents a question of 
law that we review de novo.  See Palian, 2020 ME 131, ¶ 10, 242 A.3d 164; Burr 
v. Dep’t of Corr., 2020 ME 130, ¶ 20, 240 A.3d 371. 
 
[¶14]  The First Amendment provides, “Congress shall make no law . . . 
abridging the freedom of speech . . . .”  U.S. Const. amend. I.  By virtue of the 
Fourteenth Amendment, the prohibition against governmental abridgement of 
the freedom of speech applies to state governments.  See U.S. Const. amend. XIV, 
§ 1 (“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges 
or immunities of citizens of the United States . . . .”); Jones v. Sec’y of State, 2020 
ME 113, ¶ 19, 238 A.3d 982. 
 
[¶15]  Gray argues that the record does not support a finding of actual 
malice, but the Department argues in response that the actual malice standard 
is not applicable.  To resolve this dispute, we (1) determine the proper standard 
for evaluating whether the First Amendment has been violated in these 
                                         
4  The only adopted rule pertaining to professional investigators requires a written examination 
regarding “handgun safety, weapons handling mechanical operations, and use of force.”  16-222 
C.M.R. ch. 9, § 9.03 (effective Aug. 1, 1998). 
 
9 
circumstances, and (2) apply that standard in reviewing the Department’s 
decision on Gray’s application. 
 
1. 
Standard for Determining a First Amendment Violation 
 
[¶16]  We review the constitutionality of the applicable statutes as they 
were applied and do not treat Gray’s argument as a facial constitutional 
challenge because Gray does not argue that the challenged statutes “cannot be 
applied constitutionally on any set of facts.”  Guardianship of Chamberlain, 2015 
ME 76, ¶ 10, 118 A.3d 229. 
 
[¶17]  Gray analogizes his situation to that of the teacher in Pickering v. 
Board of Education, whose employment was terminated after he criticized the 
local board of education in a published letter to the editor of a newspaper.  
391 U.S. at 564-65.  Unlike in Pickering, however, Gray has not had government 
employment terminated based on his exercise of the right to speak as a private 
citizen on a matter of public concern.5  See id. at 564-65, 573-74.  Rather, he has 
                                         
5  Such a termination of government employment may violate First Amendment rights because 
teachers cannot “constitutionally be compelled to relinquish the First Amendment rights they would 
otherwise enjoy as citizens to comment on matters of public interest in connection with the operation 
of the public schools in which they work.”  Pickering, 391 U.S. at 568.  In such instances, courts must 
“arrive at a balance between the interests of the teacher, as a citizen, in commenting upon matters of 
public concern and the interest of the State, as an employer, in promoting the efficiency of the public 
services it performs through its employees.”  Id.  The Supreme Court therefore held that “absent proof 
of false statements knowingly or recklessly made by [a teacher], a teacher’s exercise of [the] right to 
speak on issues of public importance may not furnish the basis for [the teacher’s] dismissal from 
public employment.”  Id. at 574. 
 
10 
been subjected to regulations governing the licensing of professional 
investigators based on his conduct as a member of the profession for which he 
seeks a license.  Cf. Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410, 421, 426 (2006) (“We reject 
. . . the notion that the First Amendment shields from discipline the expressions 
employees make pursuant to their professional duties.”).  The analysis set forth 
in Pickering is, therefore, inapposite. 
 
[¶18]  Because of the power of government to regulate conduct, 
governmental authority “to regulate the professions is not lost whenever the 
practice of a profession entails speech.”  Greater Balt. Ctr. for Pregnancy 
Concerns, Inc. v. Mayor & City Council of Balt., 879 F.3d 101, 109 (4th Cir. 2018) 
(quotation marks omitted).  “States may regulate professional conduct, even 
though that conduct incidentally involves speech.”  Nat’l Inst. of Fam. & Life 
Advocs. [NIFLA] v. Becerra, 138 S. Ct. 2361, 2372 (2018).  The State “bears a 
special responsibility for maintaining standards among members of the 
licensed professions” and “does not lose its power to regulate commercial 
activity deemed harmful to the public whenever speech is a component of that 
activity.”  Ohralik v. Ohio State Bar Ass’n, 436 U.S. 447, 456, 460 (1978). 
 
[¶19]  Occupational licensing requirements are not categorically exempt 
from First Amendment scrutiny, however, see Vizaline, L.L.C. v. Tracy, 949 F.3d 
 
11 
927, 934 (5th Cir. 2020), and the Supreme Court has signaled that professional 
speech does not fall into a unique category that is exempt from First 
Amendment protections, see NIFLA, 138 S. Ct. at 2373-75.  The pertinent 
standard for determining whether a regulation governing entry into a 
profession violates the First Amendment has become a subject of some 
confusion throughout the United States. 
 
[¶20]  Following the issuance of Lowe v. Securities and Exchange 
Commission in 1985, many courts cleaved to the standard set forth in Justice 
White’s concurring opinion in that matter: “Regulations on entry into a 
profession, as a general matter, are constitutional if they have a rational 
connection with the applicant’s fitness or capacity to practice the profession.”  
472 U.S. 181, 228 (1985) (White, J., concurring) (quotation marks omitted); see, 
e.g., Hines v. Alldredge, 783 F.3d 197, 201-02 & n.17 (5th Cir. 2015), abrogation 
recognized by Vizaline, 949 F.3d at 933-34; Nat’l Ass’n for the Advancement of 
Multijurisdiction Prac. v. Howell, 851 F.3d 12, 16, 19-20 (D.C. Cir. 2017) 
(applying rational basis review to restrictions on who may appear as counsel 
before a local federal court); Nat’l Ass’n for the Advancement of Multijurisdiction 
Prac. v. Castille, 799 F.3d 216, 221 (3d Cir. 2015) (“It has long been true that [a] 
State can require high standards of qualification, such as good moral character 
 
12 
or proficiency in its law, before it admits an applicant to the bar, so long as any 
requirement has a rational connection with the applicant’s fitness or capacity 
to practice law.” (alteration in original) (quotation marks omitted)). 
 
[¶21]  Because, however, the Supreme Court held in 2018 that it has 
never recognized “professional speech as a unique category that is exempt from 
ordinary First Amendment principles,” NIFLA, 138 S. Ct. at 2375, it is unclear 
whether the “rational connection” test is appropriately applied even as to 
standards of qualification to practice a profession, see Vizaline, 949 F.3d at 934 
(“While we hold the district court erred by categorically exempting 
occupational-licensing requirements from First Amendment scrutiny, we 
express no view on what level of scrutiny might be appropriate for applying 
Mississippi’s licensing requirements to [the plaintiff]’s practice.”). 
 
[¶22]  The Supreme Court has made clear that if regulations impose 
content-based restrictions on speech, strict scrutiny or intermediate scrutiny 
may be applied, depending on whether the affected speech was commercial 
speech.  See NIFLA, 138 S. Ct. at 2374-75; Otto v. City of Boca Raton, 981 F.3d 
854, 859-68 (11th Cir. 2020) (applying strict scrutiny to an ordinance 
prohibiting sexual orientation change therapies because the ordinance 
imposed content- and viewpoint-based restrictions on speech); see also Holder 
 
13 
v. Humanitarian L. Project, 561 U.S. 1, 27-28 (2010) (stating that although a law 
may be directed at conduct, the conduct triggering the application of that law 
may consist of communicating a particular message and therefore may require 
a court to apply First Amendment principles).6 
 
[¶23]  The treatment of regulations governing the licensing of 
professionals that place a merely incidental burden on speech is, however, 
unclear.  Free speech concerns are implicated in such cases because 
“constitutional violations may arise from the deterrent, or chilling, effect of 
governmental [efforts] that fall short of a direct prohibition against the exercise 
of First Amendment rights.”  Umbehr, 518 U.S. at 674 (alteration in original) 
(quotation marks omitted) (explaining that “unconstitutional conditions” may 
not be placed on government benefits).7  However, it is unclear whether such 
regulations are subject to the “rational connection” test, see Lowe, 472 U.S. at 
                                         
6  Before National Institute of Family & Life Advocates [NIFLA] v. Becerra, 138 S. Ct. 2361, 2372 
(2018), some intermediate level of scrutiny was applied in reviewing content-based standards 
governing attorney conduct that included “actual malice” language prohibiting a lawyer from making 
“a statement that the lawyer knows to be false or with reckless disregard as to its truth or falsity 
concerning the qualifications, integrity, or record of a judge.”  Standing Comm. on Discipline of the U.S. 
Dist. Ct. v. Yagman, 55 F.3d 1430, 1437 (9th Cir. 1995) (quotation marks omitted) (applying an 
objective test of whether the attorney “had a reasonable factual basis for making the statements, 
considering their nature and the context in which they were made”); In re Dixon, 994 N.E.2d 1129, 
1132-37 (Ind. 2013) (same). 
7  “[I]f the government could deny a benefit to a person because of his constitutionally protected 
speech or associations, his exercise of those freedoms would in effect be penalized and inhibited.”  
Perry v. Sindermann, 408 U.S. 593, 597 (1972). 
 
14 
228 (White, J., concurring), or must survive intermediate scrutiny, meaning that 
they “must be narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest,” 
Packingham v. North Carolina, 137 S. Ct. 1730, 1736 (2017) (quotation marks 
omitted).  The Supreme Court did not decide the question in NIFLA, 138 S. Ct. at 
2373-75, but a handful of courts have since opined on the issue. 
 
[¶24]  The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit recently 
considered a North Carolina ban on the practice of law by corporations—a 
professional regulation that incidentally affected speech.  Capital Associated 
Indus. v. Stein, 922 F.3d 198, 207 (4th Cir. 2019).  As that court stated, “Many 
laws that regulate the conduct of a profession or business place incidental 
burdens on speech, yet the Supreme Court has treated them differently than 
restrictions on speech.”  Id. at 207-08. 
 
[¶25]  The court held that the practice of law involved both 
communicative and noncommunicative aspects and that the pertinent statutes 
did not target “the communicative aspects of practicing law, such as the advice 
lawyers may give to clients” but instead focused on who may act as a lawyer.  
Id. at 208.  “Licensing laws inevitably have some effect on the speech of those 
who are not (or cannot be) licensed.  But that effect is merely incidental to the 
primary objective of regulating the conduct of the profession.”  Id. 
 
15 
 
[¶26]  The court observed that, although intermediate scrutiny ordinarily 
applies to regulations of conduct that incidentally impact speech, “the 
[Supreme] Court’s cases have not been crystal clear about the appropriate 
standard of review” given that regulations relating to admission to a profession 
fall in “an area in which [the Court] ‘has afforded less protection for professional 
speech.’”  Id. (quoting NIFLA, 138 S. Ct. at 2372); see also AMA v. Stenehjem, 
412 F. Supp. 3d 1134, 1148-49 (D.N.D. 2019) (following Stein).  The court 
concluded, however, that intermediate scrutiny should be applied, stating, “We 
think this a sensible result, as it fits neatly with the broad leeway that states 
have to regulate professions.”  Stein, 922 F.3d at 209; but see Doyle v. Palmer, 
365 F. Supp. 3d 295, 304-05 (E.D.N.Y. 2019) (holding that the requirement of a 
sponsor’s affidavit for Bar admission “is nothing more than a standard 
regulation of the legal profession that . . . passes rational basis review”). 
 
[¶27]  Confronting the question of the proper level of scrutiny, another 
court described the legal ambiguity as follows: 
[T]he Court in NIFLA explained that a lower level of scrutiny should 
be applied to two kinds of content-neutral restrictions: (1) laws 
that require professionals to disclose factual, noncontroversial 
information in their commercial speech[]; and (2) regulations of 
professional conduct that incidentally burden speech.  Although the 
Court in NIFLA did not specifically state what level of review—how 
much lower than strict scrutiny—applied to regulations of 
 
16 
professional conduct that incidentally burden speech, the Court 
appeared to apply intermediate scrutiny. 
 
McLemore v. Gumucio, No. 3:19-cv-00530, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 228082, at *59 
(M.D. Tenn. Dec. 4, 2020) (emphasis added) (quotation marks omitted) 
(citation omitted).  That court, citing Stein, 922 F.3d at 209, assumed for 
purposes of deciding a motion to dismiss that intermediate scrutiny would 
apply if the merits were reached.  Id. at *60-61. 
 
[¶28]  In light of NIFLA and Stein, we similarly conclude that intermediate 
scrutiny is the proper test to apply when a regulation of conduct that does not 
explicitly target speech but incidentally burdens it is challenged on First 
Amendment grounds.8  Here, the licensing standards, requiring good character 
and competency in investigating matters, do not on their face prohibit or 
constrain speech.  Cf. NIFLA, 138 S. Ct. at 2372.  The licensing statutes 
incidentally affect an applicant’s speech, however, because determining 
whether an applicant meets the requirements of good character and 
competency 
may 
depend—as 
it 
does 
here—upon 
the 
applicant’s 
communications.  See id.; 33 M.R.S. §§ 8105(4), 8113(6).  We therefore apply 
                                         
8  Although we apply intermediate scrutiny based on our reading of NIFLA, 138 S. Ct. at 2370-75, 
applying the less stringent “rational connection” test would yield the same result, Lowe v. SEC, 
472 U.S. 181, 228 (1985) (White, J., concurring) (quotation marks omitted). 
 
17 
intermediate scrutiny to review the Department’s application of the licensing 
statutes to Gray’s application. 
 
2. 
Application of Intermediate Scrutiny 
 
[¶29]  Unlike a determination of actual malice, which “involve[s] legal, as 
well as factual, elements,” and requires an independent examination of the 
record, intermediate scrutiny does not involve that level of review, and we will 
accept the facts found by the Department unless they are unsupported by 
evidence in the record.  Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. 352, 367-68 (1991); 
see Palian, 2020 ME 131, ¶ 10, 242 A.3d 164.  Thus, we proceed to (a) review 
the findings of the Department and (b) apply intermediate scrutiny to the 
licensing standards as applied.  
a. 
Review of Findings 
 
[¶30]  We review the decision of the Department to determine whether 
its findings are “supported by substantial evidence in the record.”  Palian, 2020 
ME 131, ¶ 10, 242 A.3d 164 (quotation marks omitted). 
 
[¶31]  In its final decision, the Department specifically found that Gray 
made uninvestigated and false statements, using the social media account of his 
investigation business, in which he suggested that the lieutenant was 
intoxicated; stated that the lieutenant had “murdered,” “executed,” or “killed” a 
 
18 
woman; and indicated that the lieutenant had been subject to multiple 
complaints filed with the OPS.  Gray admitted, through his responses to the 
Department’s written questions, that the statements, which were made part of 
the evidentiary record, were his.   
 
[¶32]  Substantial evidence in the record supports the Department’s 
determination that Gray used a social media account bearing his investigation 
business’s name to repeatedly publicize uninvestigated and false statements.  
The evidence also supports the Department’s ultimate finding that Gray’s 
behavior demonstrated that he lacked the necessary good character and 
competency to serve as an investigator in Maine.  See 32 M.R.S. § 8105(4) 
(requiring the demonstration of “good moral character”); id. § 8113(6) 
(authorizing the denial of a professional investigator’s license if the applicant 
lacks competency to carry out the duties of an investigator); id. § 8103(4-A)(A), 
(B) (establishing a professional investigator’s role in investigating the crimes, 
conduct, reputation, or character of others).  The record also supports the 
Department’s finding that Gray’s responses to the questions propounded on 
him demonstrated a lack of capacity to distinguish between fact and opinion—
an ability that a professional investigator must possess.  See id. § 8113(6)(B).  
The Department therefore did not err in its findings. 
 
19 
b. 
Intermediate Scrutiny of the Licensing Standards as Applied 
 
[¶33]  The question before us is whether the statutory licensing 
standards, as applied in Gray’s case, were “narrowly tailored to serve a 
significant governmental interest.”  Packingham, 137 S. Ct. at 1736 (quotation 
marks omitted); see NIFLA, 138 S. Ct. at 2372. 
 
[¶34]  The Department denied the license application because, as the 
record supports, Gray published uninvestigated speculation as fact using his 
job title and the name of his Massachusetts private investigation business—
conduct that demonstrated a lack of capacity to distinguish between fact and 
opinion, and to investigate and honestly report facts.  See 32 M.R.S. 
§§ 8103(4-A)(A), (B), 8105(4), 8113(6); see also Office of Pro. Regul. v. McElroy, 
824 A.2d 567, 568-69, 571 (Vt. 2003).  The government has a significant 
interest in maintaining standards of good character and competency for those 
who investigate and report on the intimate details of others’ lives.  See 32 M.R.S. 
§ 8103(4-A)(A), (B); Fla. Bar v. Went for It, Inc., 515 U.S. 618, 625 (1995) 
(“States have a compelling interest in the practice of professions within their 
boundaries, and . . . as part of their power to protect the public health, safety, 
and other valid interests they have broad power to establish standards for 
 
20 
licensing practitioners and regulating the practice of professions.” (quotation 
marks omitted)). 
 
[¶35]  The Department denied Gray’s application not because of the 
viewpoint he expressed on social media but because of the false, uninvestigated 
information that Gray presented as fact using the name of his Massachusetts 
private investigation business.  The Department’s rationale for its decision goes 
to the heart of professional responsibility concerns and does not chill any 
speech other than that which would, for a professional investigator, violate 
standards of conduct in a profession that is focused on the investigation and 
accurate communication of facts.  See In re R. M. J., 455 U.S. 191, 203 (1982) 
(holding that, when a state regulates in a way that affects speech, it must have 
“a substantial interest and the interference with speech must be in proportion 
to the interest served”).  The Department’s application of the statutes was, 
therefore, narrowly tailored to serve the significant governmental interest in 
maintaining standards for licensing professional investigators, who are 
responsible for researching and reporting on some of the most consequential 
details of people’s lives by investigating “[t]he identity, habits, conduct, 
movements, whereabouts, affiliations, associations, transactions, reputation or 
character” of others.  32 M.R.S. § 8103(4-A)(A), (B); see Packingham, 137 S. Ct. 
 
21 
at 1736.  In short, the Department’s application of the licensing standards to 
Gray did not violate the First Amendment. 
The entry is: 
 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Roger L. Hurley, Esq. (orally), Camden, for appellant Joshua A. Gray 
 
Aaron M. Frey, Attorney General, and Kent Avery, Asst. Atty. Gen. (orally), Office 
of the Attorney General, Augusta, for cross-appellant Department of Public 
Safety 
 
 
Kennebec County Superior Court docket number AP-2019-49 
FOR CLERK REFERENCE ONLY