Yes, although if I recall, that case turned in large part on whether the law could restrict calling oneself an engineer in general as opposed to misrepresenting

Yes, although if I recall, that case turned in large part on whether the law could restrict calling oneself an engineer in general as opposed to misrepresenting oneself as a Licensed Professional Engineer. In this case, Marohn was unambiguously representing himself as a PE, for example in this article that was written during the period in which his license has lapsed (see author bio at bottom of page): https://web.archive.org/web/20191227151521/https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2019/12/12/four-ways-traffic-engineers-thwart-public-will https://web.archive.org/web/20191227151521/https://www.stron... So this case will have to push a bit further than that previous one, although the precedent may help.