I Am Suing The State of California.

The government of California is trying to shut me down — for talking about how I healed my trauma symptoms. Today I filed a federal lawsuit to stop them.

Today I filed a federal lawsuit against the State of California.

The lawsuit challenges California’s attempt to stop me from speaking with adults who voluntarily seek my guidance about overcoming the effects of difficult childhood experiences.

The Pacific Legal Foundation — one of the nation’s leading public-interest law firms fighting government overreach — is representing me. They are doing so free of charge because they believe what California is doing violates fundamental constitutional protections.

To understand why this case matters, it helps to know how I got here.

I grew up in a family marked by alcoholism, addiction, neglect, and violence. Like many people from difficult homes, I carried the effects of those experiences long into adulthood. I spent 17 years in therapy, working with eleven different therapists. I wanted desperately to get better, but my symptoms continued to worsen. I became increasingly overwhelmed, disorganized, hopeless, and isolated. At one point, I came dangerously close to ending my life.

Everything changed when a young friend showed me a simple writing practice. It was a form of written prayer that helped me put distressed thoughts and feelings onto paper so there was room again for clear thinking and constructive action. It sounds simple, but for me it was transformative. The day I learned it was the day my healing began.

Thirty-two years later, I still use that practice.

Over the last decade, I have built a business around teaching the practical tools that helped me. Through books, workshops, retreats, a membership community, and a YouTube channel with more than a million subscribers, I have shared what I learned with people who grew up in difficult circumstances and are looking for ways to improve their lives.

I have always been clear about what I do and what I do not do. I am not a psychologist. I am not a therapist. I do not diagnose mental illness, provide psychotherapy, or treat psychiatric conditions. I teach practical strategies that may help people manage the present-day effects of a difficult childhood and build better lives in the present.

Despite all of this, the California Board of Psychology decided that what I do should be prohibited.

They accused me of illegally practicing psychology without a license — for talking with clients and charging for my time. According to the state, any paid conversation that touches on emotions, motivation, or behavior potentially qualifies as the “practice of psychology” and requires a license.

California’s definition is so broad and so vague that it could cover virtually anyone who talks with people for money. There’s no clear line between a licensed therapist and a life coach, a mentor, a pastor, or a friend who’s been through hard things and wants to help. The Board gets to decide whose conversations are legal.

This whole thing started in the fall of 2024 when I received a certified letter telling me to cease operations. If the government says you’re violating the law, it should be able to explain what conduct violates the law. In my case, that clarity has never existed. What exactly was I doing that was allegedly unlawful? Was it coaching? Was it education? Was it speaking with adults who voluntarily sought my help? Was it teaching techniques that helped me recover? The answers have never been clear. The line itself has never been defined.

I appealed. I hired lawyers. I had one hearing and then another. It cost tens of thousands of dollars and was one of the most emotionally abusive experiences of my life. They got to speak all they wanted. I was never allowed to defend myself or clarify anything or ask questions. And they still never defined anything I could have done to comply — without completely shutting down all communication with the people I serve.

The issues here go far beyond my situation.

This is a First Amendment case. Speech — including giving advice and guidance — is constitutionally protected in the United States. The government bears a heavy burden before it can require someone to get a license just to speak. You cannot use a licensing requirement to prevent willing adults from having conversations with a willing provider.

It’s also about basic fairness. If the government can prosecute you but can’t tell you what the rules are, that’s not law — that’s a trap. And a law this vague doesn’t just threaten me. It threatens anyone who coaches, mentors, teaches, or guides other people through hard things.

The Pacific Legal Foundation understood this immediately. As my attorney there, Caleb Trotter, put it: “The First Amendment protects the right to have conversations and give advice without government permission” — and “licensing someone as a psychologist does not give the state a monopoly on human guidance.”

A ruling in my favor would affirm that the First Amendment protects the right of Americans to share advice, education, guidance, and personal experience without first obtaining government permission. It would prevent the state from using an undefined licensing statute to silence speakers it has not authorized. And it would protect not only my work, but the rights of coaches, mentors, educators, authors, clergy, and countless others who help people outside the framework of licensed psychotherapy.

This has been one of the hardest things I’ve ever been through. When it first happened, it kind of broke me. My husband and I had serious talks about me just stopping. Walking away. Letting them win.

But I didn’t get through everything I got through, I didn’t build this, I didn’t find these tools and watch them change thousands of people’s lives, just to go quiet because a government board couldn’t define its own law.

I believe in what I do. I believe you have the right to seek help wherever you find it. I believe willing adults have the right to talk to other willing adults about their lives. And I believe that a person who healed herself and wants to share what she learned should be free to do that.

The case is Anna Runkle v. Lea Tate. Here is the the story on the Pacific Legal Foundation website.

If you want to follow along, I have a Case Insider group with personal updates as the case develops. You can sign up here.

If you want to understand what my work is actually about, see my book, Re-Regulated, and my YouTube channel, Crappy Childhood Fairy.

If you want to support this case, share this post. The more people who understand what’s at stake, the better.