In this letter, the optimality of the likelihood ratio test (LRT) is investigated for binary hypothesis testing problems in the presence of a behavioral decision-maker. By utilizing prospect theory, a behavioral decision-maker is modeled to cognitively distort probabilities and costs based on some weight and value functions, respectively. It is proved that the LRT may or may not be an optimal decision rule for prospect theory-based binary hypothesis testing, and conditions are derived to specify different scenarios. In addition, it is shown that when the LRT is an optimal decision rule, it corresponds to a randomized decision rule in some cases; i.e., nonrandomized LRTs may not be optimal. This is unlike Bayesian binary hypothesis testing, in which the optimal decision rule can always be expressed in the form of a nonrandomized LRT. Finally, it is proved that the optimal decision rule for prospect theory-based binary hypothesis testing can always be represented by a decision rule that randomizes at most two LRTs. Two examples are presented to corroborate the theoretical results.