California doctors take free speech fight to Supreme Court over COVID-19 policies

• Three California doctors are challenging the California Medical Board in the Supreme Court over disciplinary actions for their dissenting COVID-19 views.
• The doctors argue their First Amendment rights are violated, while the board claims authority to regulate “misinformation.”
• The case centers on whether states can punish licensed professionals for speech challenging mainstream COVID-19 narratives.
• Similar battles are occurring in other states, highlighting a broader trend of medical boards targeting dissenting doctors.
• The Supreme Court’s decision could set a precedent for free speech rights of medical professionals nationwide.

In a high-stakes legal showdown, three California doctors are asking the U.S. Supreme Court to shield them from disciplinary action by the California Medical Board over their dissenting views on COVID-19 policies. The case, Kory v. Bonta, centers on whether the state can punish physicians for expressing opinions that challenge the mainstream narrative on COVID-19 treatments and vaccines.

The doctors argue that their First Amendment rights are under attack, while the board insists it has the authority to regulate medical speech it deems “misinformation.” With the Supreme Court now weighing the case, the outcome could set a precedent for how far states can go in policing the speech of licensed professionals.

Doctors targeted for dissent

The California Medical Board has been investigating Dr. Pierre Kory, Dr. Brian Tyson, and osteopathic physician Le Trinh Hoang for their public statements and recommendations on COVID-19 treatments, including the use of ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine. The board claims these views constitute “misinformation” and could harm public health. However, the doctors argue that their opinions are based on their professional judgment and that they have a constitutional right to share their perspectives.

The plaintiffs argue that holding a medical license should not negate First Amendment protections, and that California cannot restrict free speech rights by citing public health concerns.

The case comes amid growing scrutiny of COVID-19 policies and vaccine mandates, many of which have been criticized as overly restrictive or based on incomplete science. For example, claims that vaccines completely stopped transmission or that natural immunity was ineffective have since been debunked. The doctors argue that their dissenting views, once labeled as “misinformation,” are now being vindicated by emerging data.

A pattern of suppression

The California Medical Board’s actions are part of a broader trend of state medical boards cracking down on doctors who question official COVID-19 narratives. In 2021, the Federation of State Medical Boards urged its members to discipline physicians for spreading “COVID misinformation.” California responded by passing Assembly Bill 2098, which made it a punishable offense for doctors to share information deemed false or misleading about COVID-19. Although the law was repealed in January 2024, the board has continued to investigate doctors under its existing authority.

The plaintiffs argue that this ongoing enforcement violates their constitutional rights. Their legal filing maintains that the state is “threatening California physicians with professional discipline for their viewpoint speech contrary to the mainstream COVID narrative.”

This case mirrors a similar battle in Washington state, where doctors are challenging the Washington Medical Commission’s authority to discipline physicians for criticizing COVID-19 policies. In Stockton v. Ferguson, plaintiffs argue that the commission violated their First Amendment rights by investigating and sanctioning doctors for their public statements. The Supreme Court recently denied an emergency appeal in that case, but the underlying legal fight continues.

A fight for medical freedom

The California doctors’ case raises critical questions about the balance between regulating medical practice and protecting free speech. While the state argues that it has a duty to ensure doctors provide accurate information, the plaintiffs contend that the board’s actions amount to viewpoint discrimination.

“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,” said Richard Jaffe, one of the attorneys representing the doctors.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Kory v. Bonta could have far-reaching implications for medical professionals across the country. If the court sides with the doctors, it could rein in state medical boards’ ability to police speech. If it rules in favor of the board, it could embolden other states to adopt similar measures.

As the Supreme Court considers this landmark case, the stakes could not be higher for medical professionals and free speech advocates. The California doctors’ fight is not just about COVID-19 policies—it’s about defending the right of all Americans to question authority and share dissenting views without fear of retribution. In a time when public trust in institutions is eroding, protecting free speech may be more important than ever.

Sources for this article include:

TheEpochTimes.com

WashingtonTimes.com

ChildrensHealthDefense.org