- The Supreme Court refused to intervene in Stockton v. Ferguson, allowing Washington state's investigation of physicians accused of spreading COVID-19 "misinformation" to proceed, leaving free speech claims unresolved.
- The lawsuit, led by former NBA star John Stockton, four physicians and Children’s Health Defense, challenges the Washington Medical Commission's enforcement of a policy disciplining healthcare professionals for public criticism of COVID-19 policies, citing First Amendment violations.
- The commission has disciplined at least 10 practitioners, including doctors Richard Eggleston and Thomas Siler, for opinion articles deemed "misinformation," arguing such speech undermines public health efforts.
- Plaintiffs argue the commission’s actions violate free speech protections, citing a 2018 Supreme Court ruling that prohibits viewpoint-based government regulation of speech, even by healthcare professionals.
The Supreme Court on Jan. 13 declined to intervene in a case involving Washington state's investigation of licensed physicians accused of spreading Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) "misinformation," leaving the doctors' free speech claims unresolved.
The decision, issued without explanation or dissent, allows the Washington Medical Commission to continue probing physicians who publicly criticized pandemic policies, a move the doctors argue violates their First Amendment rights. The case, Stockton v. Ferguson, underscores the ongoing tension between public health authority and free speech in the post-pandemic era. (Related: Zuckerberg: Biden admin pressured Meta to censor posts about COVID-19 vaccine side effects.)
The lawsuit was brought by former NBA star John Stockton, four physicians and the nonprofit Children’s Health Defense, founded by Secretary of Health and Human Services nominee Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
The plaintiffs sought an emergency injunction to halt the commission’s investigations, which they claim target doctors for expressing dissenting views on COVID-19 policies. The Supreme Court’s refusal to act means the case will proceed in the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, where oral arguments are scheduled for May 12.
The Washington Medical Commission, relying on the state's Uniform Disciplinary Act, began enforcing a policy in September 2021 to discipline healthcare professionals for public criticism of COVID-19 policies.
At least 10 practitioners have faced disciplinary actions, including two doctors – Richard Eggleston and Thomas Siler – who were investigated for opinion articles they wrote in The Lewiston Tribune and American Thinker, respectively. The commission argues that such speech constitutes "misinformation" that undermines public health efforts.
"It has never been more vital for trusted healthcare professionals to band together against the threat of misinformation," Washington Secretary of Health Dr. Umair A. Shah said in 2021. "As we battle COVID-19, with so many tools at our disposal to protect ourselves and others, it is viral misinformation, rooted in unfounded scientific claims, that often stands in our way."
Plaintiffs contend Washington commission's actions violate First Amendment
The plaintiffs, however, contend that the commission's actions violate the First Amendment. They cite the Supreme Court’s 2018 ruling in National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra, which held that the government cannot regulate speech based on its viewpoint.
"Public speech does not lose its constitutional protection from government action simply because it is uttered by a healthcare professional, even if it is at odds with medical orthodoxy," Kennedy and his co-counsel wrote in their Supreme Court application.
The case has broader implications for the intersection of free speech and public health authority. Historically, courts have granted significant deference to public health agencies during emergencies, but the COVID-19 pandemic has tested the limits of that deference. The Supreme Court’s refusal to intervene in Stockton v. Ferguson suggests that, for now, the justices are unwilling to weigh in on this contentious issue.
Richard Jaffe, one of the doctors’ attorneys, told The Epoch Times that the case is far from over.
"It was a long shot to ask the justices to take over a case during the pendency of an appeal, but we thought it was worth the effort because the basic idea that the state can sanction a physician for speaking out in public about a matter of public interest seems so un-American and at odds with every judge and justice who have written about this issue," Jaffe said.
Watch this Fox News report discussing the House COVID committee's report on potential coverups.
This video is from the NewsClips channel on Brighteon.com.
More related stories:
Concerns rise over the potential release of new engineered, weaponized and even deadlier pathogens.
Pfizer faces legal battle over misrepresentation of COVID-19 vaccine efficacy and censorship efforts.
Medical journal censorship is the proximate cause of the COVID vaccine catastrophe.
CCDH agents threatened health freedom advocates and COVID truthers with lawsuits to silence them.
Sources include:
Please contact us for more information.