Our reply brief in Kory v. Bonta was filed yesterday. Here it is.
Petitioners Reply Brief

Here are the other briefs, opening brief, 24-KoryPetition brief in opposition, oppositionbrief
and the amicus filed by Simone Gold and her group, (thanks Simone!) AFD-Kory Amici Brief-4-16-2025 (1)

The case should be submitted to the justices for cert consideration starting today. The term ends the end of June, so we will get an answer before the term ends. But since the last scheduled conference was in mid-April, I don’t think it’s possible to know when exactly it will be taken up by the court. We’ll know when we get the thumbs up or thumbs down.

The question presented is urgent and overdue:
Can California punish licensed physicians for giving information and recommendations contrary to the state-approved COVID messaging? We think not (obviously).

We also urged the Court to hear Kory alongside Chiles v. Salazar, the therapist-speech case which the Supreme Court decided to hear back in March. Chiles deals with speech to patients which does double duty as treatment. Kory deals with the broader issue of what doctors can say to patients—about early treatment, natural immunity, vaccine risks, and alternative protocols, and in general, information during an evolving public health crisis. If the Court takes Chiles but ducks Kory, the real and recurring problem goes unsolved.

Ordinarily, cert is almost an impossibility, especially in a case like this in which there is no final decision. We appealed the district court’s denial of a preliminary injunction and his ruling that none of the plaintiffs had standing. And puts the case on the court’s “shadow docket” which some justices don’t like.

But the country is now involved in a national conversation, complements of Senator Johnson’s hearing on May 21, 2025 about how the Biden administration delayed informing the public about the COVID vaccines risk of myocarditis (a point referred to many times in our case) The title of his majority report says it all “Failure to Warn: How the Federal Health Agencies Downplayed the Risk of Myocarditis and Other Adverse Events Following COVID-19 Vaccination.”

We also referred to the May 22, 2025 MAHA report which set new policy encouraging physicians to make their own judgments about vaccines. Here is the relevant language from the report:

“Physicians who question or deviate from the CDC’s vaccine schedule may face professional repercussions, including scrutiny from licensing boards and potential disciplinary action. The American Medical Association (AMA), for example, adopted a new policy aimed at “addressing public health disinformation” that called to “ensure licensing boards have the authority to take disciplinary action against health professionals for spreading health-related disinformation.” This dynamic discourages practitioners from conducting or discussing nuanced risk-benefit analyses that deviate from official guidelines—even when those analyses may be clinically appropriate. It also discourages physicians and scientists from studying adverse reactions. This silences critical discussion, discourages reporting to safety systems and hampers vaccine research, and undermines the open dialogue essential to protecting and improving children’s health.” (footnotes omitted).

In our reply we argued that the Supreme Court should join this national conversation and protect the information which physicians want to impart to patients, and more importantly, what patients are constitutionally entitled to hear.”

Let’s connect the dots:

The federal government is now admitting that dissenting physicians were right to be concerned about the side effects from the COVID shots. The data was there. The suppression was real. The state-sanctioned censorship of those who raised the alarm didn’t protect the public—it protected bad policy.

And California is still at it. With support from the AMA and the Federation of State Medical Boards, it’s using the general standard of care statute (Section 2234(c)) to suppress constitutionally protected speech.

We’re also litigating physician speech in Stockton v. Ferguson, challenging Washington’s Medical Commission’s suppression of public/soapbox speech. Both the Johnson and MAHA reports will be submitted to the Ninth Circuit panel in that case this next week.

So now, Kory is in the Justices’ hands. Chiles is already on the docket. Stockton is queued up next.

Hopefully, the Supremes will accept this case and enforce the Constitution.

Rick Jaffe, Esq.