The U.S. Supreme Court on May 4 declined to take up NBA Hall of Famer John Stockton’s petition arguing that Washington state regulators’ investigation and punishment of licensed physicians over COVID-19 treatment advice was unconstitutional.
The petition was filed by Stockton, Children’s Health Defense, which is a nonprofit organization founded by the U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., three named medical doctors, and 50 unnamed medical doctors. Stockton is a former professional basketball player with the Utah Jazz who has been an outspoken opponent of the COVID-19 vaccines.
The commission deemed the doctors’ dissenting views on the disease as potentially dangerous misinformation that should be suppressed. The physicians, who discouraged COVID-19 vaccination and promoted treatments such as the use of ivermectin, countered that just because they have medical licenses, they don’t forfeit their free speech rights under the First Amendment.
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington dismissed the case in May 2024, finding that the public speech of doctors was not protected by the First Amendment.
The petitioners asked a motions panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit for an injunction halting the commission’s activities. It was denied in September 2024 “without substantive discussion,” the petition said.
They then asked the Supreme Court to stay the Ninth Circuit’s ruling. Justice Elena Kagan denied the application in November 2024. The full Supreme Court denied the application in January 2025.
On Sept. 16, 2025, the Washington Court of Appeals held in a separate case called Wilkinson v. Washington Medical Commission that the commission’s misinformation policy ran afoul of the First Amendment.
The state-level court found that safeguarding the public from false speech was not a compelling government purpose. The court also found that the Supreme Court does not recognize a legitimate government interest in regulating doctors’ speech outside the doctor-patient relationship, the petition said.
The next day, the Ninth Circuit affirmed its prior dismissal, finding Stockton's lawsuit had been brought prematurely.
The petitioners told the Supreme Court that for 80 years, “every justice and judge to consider the question has recognized that the First Amendment robustly protects the rights of professionals to speak to the public as soapbox speakers.”
The petitioners argued that the Ninth Circuit’s ruling contained multiple errors, including its holding that federal courts are required to defer to state disciplinary proceedings “because they implicate an ‘important state interest’ in regulating medical practice and patient care.”
That ruling was “obsolete in light of Wilkinson” because “an unconstitutional policy cannot have any important or legitimate interest,” the petition said.
The Ninth Circuit’s ruling should be left intact because it was correct, did not conflict with Supreme Court precedent, and did not conflict with rulings by federal courts of appeals, the brief said.
In Chiles, the court ruled on First Amendment grounds against a Colorado ban on so-called conversion therapy for LGBT youth. In First Choice, the court ruled that faith-based pregnancy centers may sue New Jersey in federal court to block a subpoena of their donor records. The justices said the subpoenas interfered with the centers’ First Amendment free association rights.
“The Supreme Court abrogated the holdings in both the Ninth Circuit’s affirmance of the dismissal and the district court’s order,” Jaffe said.
On the plus side, the lawyer said the commission has withdrawn charges against two of the petitioners, Drs. Richard Eggleston and Thomas Siler, “which was the goal of all the state and federal litigation.”
Brown spokesman Mike Faulk hailed the new ruling.
“The district court and the Ninth Circuit applied decades of clear precedent in dismissing this lawsuit,” Faulk told The Epoch Times. “It’s not surprising the Supreme Court saw no need to review these obviously correct judgments.”