Washington Federal Judge Denies TRO to Stop the Washington Medical Commission’s Prosecutions of Covid Misinformation Soapbox Speech
On Friday March 17th, a Washington (state) federal judge denied a TRO filed by three physicians who were claiming that the the Washington Medical Commisions (their medical board) violated their federal constitutional and state law rights in filing charges against them for speaking out in public against the mainstream Covid narrative.
Here are the complaint, TRO application and the judge’s decision:
Complaint(1)
TRO
Denial of TRO
The judge wasn’t buying any of it, but I have to say, I don’t completely blame him. Attempting to stop ongoing state administrative proceedings is very difficult because federal courts don’t like sticking their noses into state proceedings. The legal term for that is “abstention”, and when a medical board disciplinary proceeding is the target, that is often referred to as “Younger Abstention” (though there are some other names for it).
There are ways to get around abstention and avoid some of the other defects in the papers, some of which were pointed out in the judge’s decision. I am guessing that the plaintiffs’ counsel were not familiar with this particular kind of constitutional litigation. Beyond these deficits, the judge took the position that the Commission’s policy didn’t arise to a legal rule or something like that. I think that’s a dubious proposition.
Anyway, it looks like all three Commission cases will be proceeding to administrative hearings in the next few months. They will have to slug it out on the merits. The good news is that task is getting easier with the public’s increasing realization that the public health authorities are making it all up as they go along and contradicting themselves, which is the thrust of Judge Shubb’s decision in the Hoeg/Hoang preliminary injunction decision.
In constitutional litigation involving Covid, you win a few and lose a bunch.
All the best to these three brave Washington docs. They have cases to be made to the Commission panels.
Rick Jaffe, Esq.
6 thoughts on “Washington Federal Judge Denies TRO to Stop the Washington Medical Commission’s Prosecutions of Covid Misinformation Soapbox Speech”
SEEMS LIKE ALL OF THE CASES NEED TO BE WON AND THEREFOR A COALITION OF LAWFIRMS AND ATTORNEYS WOULD BENEFIT EVERYONE …THE ATTORNEYS WOULD DEBATE THE VARIOUS APPROACHES, SHARE WORK PRODUCT, AND TAKE ON THE GOAL OF WINNING EVERY CASE FOR THE COMMON GOOD (WHICH NEEDS TO BENEFIT AMERICA AND NOT JUST ONE STATE OR LOCAL)
NEVERTHELESS, YOUR WORK AND REPORTING ARE GREATLY APPRECIATED.
Thanks Rick. I appreciate your take on these important matters.
My thoughts. In the sense that these were public discussions and free speech is a constitutional liberty it would seem to me (a non-attorney) that abstention is a cop-out when they are dealing with more of a federal issue than an administrative one. It would be the opposite if the doctors were giving health care advice in their offices, of course. This federal judge said in essence that physicians do not have a right to their own thoughts in public though they may differ from their practice of medicine. It’s simply a matter of censorship.
Again, I appreciate your work, please continue to keep us informed!
I agree, but they didn’t frame the case to lessen the chances of having abstention apply, or to maximize the national First Amendment issue. And If they take it up on appeal, it will be another bad ruling on this important issue. Good to hear from you G.
Rick
Who were the doctors involved?
the names of the docs are in the decision which is attached. I think it’s Wilenson, Eggleston and Cole, but check