SCOTUS Urged to Prevent State Investigation of Doctors Challenging COVID-19 Policies
The attorney for the plaintiffs argues that public health policies cannot infringe upon the free speech rights of physicians.
This week, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas rekindled an emergency application aimed at halting the Washington Medical Commission’s investigation of licensed physicians in the state due to their criticisms of COVID-19 policies.
The commission considers the dissenting opinions of these doctors on the disease as potentially harmful misinformation that warrants suppression. In response, the physicians assert that holding medical licenses does not equate to surrendering their First Amendment rights to free speech.
Supreme Court procedures permit an application denied by one justice to be presented to another. However, neither Thomas nor Kagan provided an explanation for their decisions.
The application is set to be reviewed by all nine justices during the court’s private judicial conference on Jan. 10, 2025. The justices have the options to grant an injunction against the commission, deny the request, or schedule the case for oral arguments.
As of Dec. 6, the Supreme Court had not requested a response from the Washington Medical Commission.
Related Stories
The application was initiated by former NBA player John Stockton, together with Drs. Richard Eggleston, Thomas Siler, Daniel Moynihan, and an additional 50 unnamed medical professionals, as well as Children’s Health Defense, a nonprofit established by Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr., an attorney and president-elect Donald Trump’s nominee for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, is also listed as co-counsel on the application.
The application argues that the state is targeting “Washington-licensed physicians for expressing public views on COVID-19 that do not conform with the prevailing orthodoxy.”
The state has labeled the doctors’ viewpoints as “misinformation,” asserting that it can “regulate this speech,” but according to a ruling by the Supreme Court in National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra (2018), it does not have that authority, as per the application.
“The Court should send a clear and decisive message to state actors, professional organizations, other non-state actors, and the national media: Public speech does not lose its constitutional protection from government action merely because it is expressed by a healthcare professional, even when it conflicts with medical orthodoxy,” the application states.
In September 2021, leveraging its authority under Washington state’s Uniform Disciplinary Act, the Washington Medical Commission initiated a policy against doctors for public speech criticizing COVID-19 policies, resulting in “disciplinary actions against at least ten healthcare practitioners,” according to the application.
“Amidst our battle against COVID-19, with various tools available to protect ourselves and others, it is the viral misinformation, stemming from baseless scientific claims, that often obstructs our efforts.”
The commission is taking action against Eggleston and Siler for opinion pieces they authored in the Lewiston Tribune and American Thinker, respectively, that criticize COVID-19 policies.
Children’s Health Defense, which includes a Washington state medical doctor as a member, is part of the application due to its commitment to advocating for free speech and addressing COVID-19 vaccine-related matters, as indicated in the submission.
Richard Jaffe, the applicants’ attorney from Sacramento, California, expressed optimism regarding the application when speaking to The Epoch Times.
“It’s generally unusual to approach a second Supreme Court justice after a prior denial, making it a challenging endeavor,” he noted.
However, it appears Thomas “believes it’s a significant issue” that warrants consideration, he added.
Jaffe remarked that numerous mainstream media articles suggest that there are insufficient sanctions against doctors publicly opposing vaccination or repeated boosters.
“The nation requires clarity from the Supreme Court on the interpretation of the First Amendment concerning a physician’s free speech rights.”
The Epoch Times attempted to obtain a statement from Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson but did not receive a response by the time of publication.
