Amicus Curiae Brief — John Stockton, et al., Petitioners v. Nick Brown, Attorney General of Washington, et al.

No. 25-606

In the

Supreme Court of the United States

________________________

JOHN STOCKTON, et al.,

Petitioners,

v.

NICK BROWN, Attorney General

of Washington, et al.,

Respondents.

________________________

ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI

TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Amici Curiae Brief of America’s Frontline

Doctors and Dr. Simone Gold, M.D., J.D.,

in Support of Petitioners for Reversal

DR. SIMONE GOLD, M.D., J.D.

DAVID A. DALIA

Attorney at Law

Counsel of Record

700 Camp Street

New Orleans, LA 70130

(504) 524-5541

davidadalia@gmail.com

Counsel for Amici Curiae

–i–

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ...............................................iv

A MATTER OF GREAT PUBLIC IMPORTANCE ................... 1

INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE .......................................... 1

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT .............................................. 4

ARGUMENT ................................................................... 6

I.

Respondents’

credible

threats

of

disciplinary actions against Petitioner

physicians for failing to follow a

censored government-endorsed medical

narrative constitutes compelled speech,

in violation of the First Amendment and

National Institute of Family & Life

Advocates v. Becerra. Abstention is

inappropriate

where

Washington’s

Court of Appeals has held the

disciplinary policy unconstitutional.

Mandatory government speech is presumptively unconstitutional, medically

incorrect, chills physician free speech,

violates

informed

consent,

and

dangerously threatens patient care. The

Circuit conflict should be resolved by

upholding

cases

which

protect

uncensored medical information. ................. 6

II.

By attempting to prohibit discussions of

all viable treatment options available to

the public, Washington’s coercive

medical censorship breaches profession-

– ii –

al

ethical

duties

of

honesty,

transparency and informed consent

owed by all physicians to all patients,

and arguably constitutes professional

malpractice. .................................................. 11

III.

The Washington enforcement scheme

constitutes egregious and unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination in favor

of

the

now

largely

discredited

government narrative that certain

experimental mRNA gene therapy

injections for COVID-19 are “safe and

effective.” However, large amounts of

recent and highly reliable scientific

research have shown that these

experimental mRNA gene therapy

injections (a.k.a. “vaccines”) do not stop

transmission of COVID-19 to others,

have

terrible

documented

safety

profiles, and are neither “safe” nor

“effective.” Coercively compelled governmental speech is particularly egregious

when it is incorrect and dangerous. The

Washington “misinformation enforcement”

policy chills any physician/patient

discussion of safer and more successful

treatment options, thus violating the

core Hippocratic Oath.. ................................ 13

IV.

Coercively censoring information and

alternatives to such a dangerous

experimental drug absent voluntary,

coercion-free informed consent violates

well-established

constitutional

free

speech principles, federal regulations,

– iii –

voluntary informed consent and full

disclosure provisions, the Nuremberg

Code, 21 U.S.C. § 360bbb-3, 21 C.F.R. §

50.20, 21 C.F.R. § 50.25, and 45 C.F.R. §

46.116. These experimental drugs do

not prevent infection or transmission,

and therefore give no protection to

others. They are personal medical

treatments only.. .......................................... 22

V.

Washington’s draconian interference

with the protected doctor/patient

relationship threatens to destroy

Petitioners’ ethical medical practices

and gives Petitioners firm standing to

safeguard their First, Fifth and Seventh

Amendment rights of access to courts to

redress their grievances. .............................. 25

CONCLUSION ............................................................... 28

– iv –

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

CASES

PAGE(S)

Allen v. School Bd. for Santa Rosa Cnty., Fla.,

782 F. Supp. 2d 1304 (N.D. Fla. 2011) ............... 27

Assn. of Am. Physicians & Surgeons Educ.

Found. v. Am. Bd. Of Internal Med.,

103 F.4th 383 (5th Cir. 2024) .................... 6, 10, 26

Bolger v. Youngs Drug Prod. Corp.,

163 U.S. 60 (1983) .................................................. 8

Book People, Inc. v. Wong,

91 F.4th 318 (5th Cir. 2024) ................................ 27

Chiles v. Salazar, No. 24-539

(argued October 7, 2025).................. 1, 6, 9, 10, 27

Daily Wire, LLC v. U.S. Department of State,

733 F. Supp. 3d 566 (E.D. Tex. 2024) .................. 26

Davis v. FEC,

554 U.S. 724 (2008) .............................................. 27

Dunn v. City of Fort Valley,

464 F.Supp.3d 1347 (M.D. Ga. 2020) .................. 27

Grimes v. Kennedy Krieger Institute, Inc.

366 Md. 29 (Md. 2001) ......................................... 24

Initiative and Referendum Inst. v. Walker,

450 F.3d 1082 (10th Cir. 2006) ............................ 27

–v–

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

(continued)

John Does 1-2 v. Hochul, No. 24-1015 ........................ 1

June Medical Services L.L.C. v. Russo,

591 U.S. 299 (2020) .............................................. 26

Kory v. Bonta, No. 24-932....................................... 1, 6

Legal Services Corp. v. Velazquez,

531 U.S. 533 (2001) ........................................ 27–28

Medical Professionals for Informed Consent v.

Bassett, 78 Misc. 3d 482

(Sup. Ct. Onandaga Cty. 2023) ............................ 17

Meese v. Keene,

481 U.S. 465 (1987) .............................................. 27

Murthy v. Missouri,

603 U.S. 43 (2024) .................................................. 3

Nat’l Fed’n of Indep. Bus. v. OSHA,

595 U.S. 109 (2022) ............................................... 1

National Institute of Family & Life Advocates v.

Becerra, 585 U.S. 755 (2018)................ 1, 5, 6, 7, 28

National Institute for Family & Life Advocates,

et al. v. James, 746 F. Supp. 3d 100

(W.D.N.Y. 2024) ..................................................7-8

National Institute of Family & Life Advocates v.

Raoul, 685 F.Supp.3d 688 (N.D. Ill. 2023) ........... 8

– vi –

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

(continued)

Otto v. City of Boca Raton,

464 F.2d 772 (1972).................................... 6, 10, 28

Pernell v. Fla. Board of Governors of State

University System,

641 F. Supp. 3d 1218 (N.D. Fla. 2022) .......... 26–27

Police Dep’t of Chicago v. Mosley,

408 U.S. 92 (1972) .................................................. 8

Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of Univ.

of Virginia, 515 U.S. 819 (1995) ........................... 8

Texas v. Becerra,

577 F. Supp. 3d 527 (N.D. Tex. 2021) ................. 15

Texas v. Becerra,

89 F.4th 529 (5th Cir. 2024) ................................ 15

United States u. Caronia,

703 F.3d 149 (2d Cir. 2012) .................................. 8

Wilkinson v. Washington Medical Commission,

576 P.3d 1191 (Wash. Ct. App. 2025) ................ 4, 7

Younger v. Harris,

401 U.S. 37 (1971) .............................................. 4, 7

CONSTITUTION

First Amendment ...... 1, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 19, 27, 28

Fifth Amendment ...................................................... 25

– vii –

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

(continued)

Fifth Amendment ................................................ 25, 26

STATUTES AND REGULATIONS

21 U.S.C. § 360bbb-3 ..................................... 22, 23, 24

42 U.S.C. § 1983 ........................................................ 24

21 C.F.R. § 50.20.................................. 5, 22, 23, 24, 25

21 C.F.R. § 50.25.................................. 5, 22, 23, 24, 25

45 C.F.R. Part 46 ................................................... 5, 25

45 C.F.R. § 46.116.................................................. 5, 22

OTHER AUTHORITIES

A.M.A. Ethics Opinion 2.1.3: Withholding

Information from Patients. https://codemedical-ethics.ama-assn.org/ethics-opinions/

withholding-information-patients ................. 11–12

A.M.A. Principles of Medical Ethics. https://

code-medical-ethics.ama-assn.org/principles ....... 12

Peter R. Breggin, MD and Ginger Ross

Breggin. COVID-19 and the Global

Predators: We are the Prey, 2021 ................... 25–26

– viii –

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

(continued)

California Medication Association. “Statement:

Medical professionals and facilities should

always be off limit to attack.” https://

www.cmadocs.org/newsroom/news/view/Art

icleId/49709/Statement-Medical-professio

nals-and-facilities-should-always-be-offlimit-to-attack ...................................................... 13

A.K. Edwin, “Don’t Lie but Don’t Tell the

Whole Truth: The Therapeutic Privilege –

Is it Ever Justified?” Ghana Med J.

42(4):156-161, Dec. 2008. https://pmc.ncbi.

nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2673833/ ..................... 12

“England Refuses to Offer COVID Shots to

Kids Under 12, While US Cities Mandate

Them. Who’s Right?” https://fee.org/articles/

england-refuses-to-offer-covid-shots-to-kids

-under-12-while-us-cities-mandate-themwho-s-right/ .......................................................... 16

“Finland joins Sweden and Denmark in

limiting Moderna COVID-19 vaccine,”

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/finla

nd-pauses-use-moderna-covid-19-vaccineyoung-men-2021-10-07/ ....................................... 16

“Florida State Surgeon General Calls for Halt

in the Use of COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines.”

https://www.floridahealthgov/newsroom/20

24/01/20240103-halt-use-covid19-mrna-vac

cines.pr.html .................................................. 14–15

– ix –

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

(continued)

Gold, S., M.D., J.D. “A White Paper on

Hydroxychloroquine,” https://americasfront

linedoctors.org/index/covid/hydroxychloroq

uine/white-paper/ ................................................. 21

Hong Jin Kim, et al. “Broad-Spectrum Adverse

Events of Special Interests Based on

Immune Response Following COVID-19

Vaccination: A Large-Scale PopulationBased Cohort Study,” J. Clin. Med. 14(5)

1767, March 6, 2025. https://www.mdpi.

com/2077-0383/14/5/1767 ..................................... 21

Richard A. Jaffe. Galileo's Lawyer: Courtroom

Battles in Alternative Health, Complementary Medicine and Experimental

Treatments, 2008. ................................................. 10

Tomomi Koizumi and Masao Ono, “Cardiac

Multiple Micro-Scars: An Autopsy Study,”

J Am Coll Cardiol Case Rep. 30(5) 10383,

March 2025. https://www.jacc.org/doi/10.

1016/j.jaccas.2024.103083 .................................... 19

Lee Harding, “Japanese researchers say side

effects of COVID vaccines linked to 201

types of diseases,” Western Standard,

January 15, 2024. https://www.western

standard.news/news/japanese-researcherssay-side-effects-of-covid-vaccines-linked-to201-types-of-diseases/51661................................. 19

–x–

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

(continued)

https://aflds.org/about-us ............................................ 2

https://aflds.org/about-us/press-releases/ameri

cas-frontline-doctors-supports-the-filing-ofa-petition-for-preliminary-injunction-to-pre

vent-kaiser-permanente-from-enforcing-th

eir-vaccine-mandate ............................................... 3

https://c19hcq.org/ ..................................................... 21

https://c19ivm.org/ ..................................................... 21

https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-pol

icy/regulations/ common-rule/index.html ..... 23, 25

https://openvaers.com/covid-data.............................. 17

https://x.com/drsimonegold/status/1892626222

250639592 ............................................................ 19

“Louisiana health officials ‘shifting away’ from

policy

of

promoting

COVID,

flu

vaccinations.” https://www.nola.com/news/

politics/vaccine-louisiana-policy-covid-flu/

article_3e0521bc-c096-11ef-bfd3-fb3898317

70e.html................................................................ 15

– xi –

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

(continued)

M. Nathaniel Mead, et al. “Myocarditis after

SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19

vaccination: Epidemiology, outcomes, and

new perspectives,” Intl J Cardiovascular

Rsch & Innovation, 3(1) 1-43, Jan-Mar

2025. https://cardiovascular-research-andinnovation.reseaprojournals.com/Articles/

myocarditis-after-sars-cov-2-infection-andcovid-19-vaccination-epidemiologyoutcomes-and-new-perspectives) ......................... 19

Art Moore, “CDC data signaling vaccine

catastrope: It took only 32 deaths to halt

1976 shot campaign.” World Net Daily,

February 14, 2022. https://www.wnd.com/

2022/02/cdc-data-signaling-vaccinecatastrophe/ .......................................................... 18

Michale Nevradakis, Ph.D. “Slovak Government Report Calls for Ban of ‘Dangerous’

mRNA Vaccines,” Science, Public Health

Policy and the Law. https://publichealth

policyjournal.com/slovak-governmentreport-calls-for-ban-of-dangerous-mrnavaccines/ ................................................................ 16

Nuremberg Code .................................. 5, 22, 23, 24, 25

– xii –

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

(continued)

Harold M. Schmeck, Jr. “Swine flu program is

halted in 9 states as 3 die after shots,” The

New York Times, October 13, 1976.

https://www.nytimes.com/1976/10/13/archiv

es/swine-flu-program-is-halted-in-9-statesas-3-die-after-shots.html ..................................... 18

James A. Thorp, et al.

“Are COVID-19

Vaccines in Pregnancy as Safe and

Effective as the Medical Industrial

Complex Claim? Part I,” Science, Public

Health Policy and the Law, 2/08/2025.

https://publichealthpolicyjournal.com/arecovid-19-vaccines-in-pregnancy-as-safeand-effective-as-the-medical-industrialcomplex-claim-part-i/ ........................................... 20

–1–

A MATTER OF GREAT PUBLIC IMPORTANCE

The Free Speech Foundation, d/b/a America’s

Frontline Doctors, and Dr. Simone Gold, M.D., J.D.,

the founder and physician member (“Amici Curiae”

or “AFLDS”) respectfully file this amici curiae brief

in support of the Petitioners’ request for reversal in

Stockton, et al. v. Brown, et al., 25-606.1

Amici Curiae filed amici curiae briefs in the

related cases of Nat’l Fed’n of Indep. Bus. v. OSHA,

595 U.S. 109 (2022); Mahmoud v. Taylor, 606 U.S.

522 (2025); Kory, et al. v. Bonta, et al., 24-932; John

Does 1-2, et al., v. Kathy Hochul, Governor of New

York, et al., 24-1015; and Chiles v. Salazar, 24-539,

as well.

This amici curiae brief offers an important

medical and legal perspective to this Court from

thousands of doctors on the frontlines, by

demonstrating

that

Washington’s

coercive

“misinformation enforcement” disciplinary scheme

violates the First Amendment, violates this Court’s

holding in National Institute of Family & Life

Advocates v. Becerra, 585 U.S. 755 (2018), and is

medically very dangerous. This is about saving lives.

INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE

Amici Curiae are the Free Speech Foundation,

d/b/a America’s Frontline Doctors (“AFLDS”), a nonpartisan, not-for-profit organization of thousands of

No counsel or any party authored or prepared this brief in

whole or in part, and no such counsel or party made a monetary

contribution intended to fund the preparation or submission of

this brief. The parties received timely notice of Amici Curiae’s

intent to file this brief.

1

–2–

member physicians from across the country,

representing a range of medical disciplines and

practical experience on the front lines of medicine,

and its founder and expert physician and attorney

member, Dr. Simone Gold, M.D., J.D., who served as

an ER doctor in minority communities for over

twenty years.2

AFLDS’ programs focus on a number of critical

issues, including:

• Providing Americans with science-based facts

for staying healthy;

• Protecting physician

government overreach;

independence

from

• Combating illnesses with evidence-based

approaches without compromising constitutional freedoms;

• Fighting medical cancel culture and media

censorship;

• Advancing healthcare policies that protect

the physician-patient relationship;

• Expanding healthy treatment options for all

Americans who need them; and

• Strengthening the voices of frontline doctors

in the national healthcare conversation.

Each of AFLDS’ member physicians is deeply

committed to the guiding principle of medicine:

“FIRST, DO NO HARM.” They take their ethical

obligations to their patients very seriously. It is

axiomatic that a physician’s duty is to his or her

patient. AFLDS holds sacrosanct the relationship

2 https://americasfrontlinedoctors.org/about-us

–3–

between doctor and patient where informed decisions

are to be made, taking into consideration all of the

factors relating to the patients’ health, risks, comorbidities and circumstances.

For AFLDS member physicians, the practice of

medicine is not merely a job or career. Rather, it is a

sacred trust. It is a high calling that often requires a

decade or more of highly focused sacrificial dedication to achieve.

America’s Frontline Doctors is committed to

preserving the voluntary and fully informed

doctor/patient relationship, opposes any sort of illegal

interference with that relationship, and opposes

illegal government overreach by the censorship of

medical and other information, or by the “mandating” of incorrect or dangerous medical information

or treatments.

Indeed, AFLDS and Dr. Simone Gold, M.D., J.D.

were targeted by the government respondents in

Murthy v. Missouri, 603 U.S. 43 (2024), as being

among the so-called “Disinformation Dozen” for

promoting accurate medical information, such as the

benefits of hydroxychloroquine (“HCQ”) and

Ivermectin, and for opposing vaccine passports.

AFLDS’ medical information proved to be completely

correct. The censors were shown to be the ones

advancing inaccurate information, even though

incorrect information is also protected free speech.

Dr. Gold and AFLDS also publicly supported the

position, as early as October, 2020, that experimental

mRNA injections are not “vaccines,” because they do

not prevent infection or transmission, and they are

neither “safe” nor “effective.”3 They are personal

3

https://aflds.org/about-us/press-releases/americas-frontline-doc

–4–

medical treatments only. This view is now also

known to be correct as both a scientific and legal

matter.

“Informed consent” for medical treatments

cannot truly be informed unless there is a full

disclosure of all known benefits and risks. Voluntary

informed consent can never be coerced, subjected to

undue influence, nor distorted by censored and

incomplete information.

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

The Petitioner physicians and listeners must be

free to engage in protected speech. Physicians must

be able to provide the public and their patients with

uncensored and accurate medical information in

their best professional judgments, and as their

Hippocratic Oath requires.

Abstention under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37

(1971) is not a barrier to decision in this case in view

of the Washington Court of Appeals’ decision holding

that the Washington State Medical Commission’s

COVID-19 “misinformation enforcement” policy did

not serve a compelling state interest and was

unconstitutional. A compelling state interest is

required for Younger abstention. Wilkinson v.

Washington Medical Commission, 576 P.3d 1191

(Wash. Ct. App. 2025).

Uncensored medical information is essential for

patients to make fully informed medical decisions,

and to give fully informed consent. For the

administration of experimental drugs offered under

tors-supports-the-filing-of-a-petition-for-preliminary-injunction-toprevent-kaiser-permanente-from-enforcing-their-vaccine-mandate

–5–

an emergency use authorization (“EUA”), such as the

experimental mRNA gene therapy injections at issue

in this case, (a.k.a. COVID-19 “vaccines”), the

comprehensive informed consent provisions of 21

C.F.R. § 50.20, 21 C.F.R. § 50.25, 45 C.F.R. Part 46,

45 C.F.R. § 46.116, and by the Nuremberg Code

itself, are mandatory. Accurate medical information

and second medical opinions save lives.

Respondents’ misguided disciplinary scheme

imposing coercive medical censorship drastically

intrudes

upon

the

private

and

protected

doctor/patient relationship, and chills full disclosure

of vital medical information to the public as well.

Honest, ethical and transparent medical

counseling that explores all treatment options free

from

unconstitutional

government

viewpoint

discrimination is essential. Washington’s coercive

misinformation enforcement censorship scheme

blatantly violates the First Amendment, the United

States Supreme Court’s holding in National Institute

of Family & Life Advocates v. Becerra, 585 U.S. 755

(2018), and harmfully interferes with the

doctor/patient relationship.

This is particularly dangerous when the

viewpoint discrimination adopted by government

information gatekeepers has been proven by a vast

body of medical research to be incorrect, and where

the censored treatment options have been proven to

be safer and more successful, as shown infra in

section III.

This Honorable Court should heal the split in the

Circuits regarding medical censorship versus

medical free speech by upholding those cases which

embrace constitutional medical free speech, fully

informed consent and medical freedom, such as Otto

–6–

v. City of Boca Raton, 981 F.3d 854 (11th Cir. 2020),

reh. denied, 41 F.4th 271 (11th Cir. 2022), and Assn.

of Am. Physicians & Surgeons Educ. Found. v. Am.

Bd. Of Internal Med., 103 F.4th 383 (5th Cir. 2024).

Indeed, this Washington First Amendment

“viewpoint discrimination” case is analogous to the

Colorado First Amendment “viewpoint discrimination” case of Chiles v Salazar, 24-539 (argued

October 7, 2025). Kory v. Bonta, 24-932, now pending

before this Court, raises very similar First

Amendment “viewpoint discrimination” issues.

ARGUMENT

I.

Respondents’

credible

threats

of

disciplinary actions against Petitioner

physicians for failing to follow a

government-endorsed

medical

narrative

constitutes

compelled

speech, in violation of the First

Amendment and National Institute of

Family & Life Advocates v. Becerra.

Abstention is inappropriate where

Washington’s Court of Appeals has held

the disciplinary policy unconstitutional. Mandatory government speech

is

presumptively

unconstitutional,

medically incorrect, chills physician

free speech, violates informed consent,

and dangerously threatens patient

care. The Circuit conflict should be

resolved by upholding cases which

protect uncensored medical information.

–7–

The Ninth Circuit failed to enforce the First

Amendment and failed to correctly apply the rule of

National Institute of Family & Life Advocates v.

Becerra, 585 U.S. 755 (2018) (“NIFLA”) to

Washington’s “misinformation enforcement” disciplinary scheme.

Abstention under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37

(1971) is not a barrier to decision in this case in view

of the Washington Court of Appeals’ decision holding

that the Washington State Medical Commission’s

COVID-19 “misinformation enforcement” policy did

not serve a compelling state interest and was

unconstitutional. Without a compelling state

interest, Younger abstention cannot stand. Wilkinson

v. Washington Medical Commission, 576 P.3d 1191

(Wash. Ct. App. 2025) (State Medical Commission’s

COVID-19 “misinformation enforcement” policy

targeting physicians for their public viewpoint

speech does not serve a compelling state interest and

violates the First Amendment.) This decision

removed any legal basis for abstention.

Coercive medical censorship can kill. It must be

urgently confronted. This is about saving lives. In

National Institute for Family and Life Advocates v.

James, 746 F. Supp. 3d 100 (W.D.N.Y. 2024), the

district court granted a preliminary injunction

against New York, preventing the State from

prohibiting free speech under the guise of “false

advertising.” New York attempted to prohibit free

speech by plaintiffs, who wished to say that

progesterone or Abortion Pill Reversal were safe and

effective. The district court stated:

As a “general matter, ‘the First Amendment

means that government has no power to

–8–

restrict expression because of its message, its

ideas, its subject matter, or its content.”

Bolger v. Youngs Drug Prod. Corp., 163 U.S.

60, 65 (1983) (quoting Police Dep't v. Mosley,

408 U.S. 92, 95 (1972)). See also Rosenberger

v. Rector & Visitors of Univ. of Virginia, 515

U.S. 819, 828 (1995) (“It is axiomatic that the

government may not regulate speech based

on its substantive content or the message it

conveys”) ... When the government targets

“particular views taken by speakers on a

subject, the violation of the First

Amendment is all the more blatant.” Id. at

829 ... Viewpoint discrimination “is thus an

egregious form of content discrimination.” Id.

And the “government must abstain from

regulating speech when the specific

motivating ideology or the opinion or

perspective of the speaker is the rationale for

the restriction.” Id. Content-based speech

restrictions “are subject to ‘strict scrutiny’ —

that is, the government must show that the

regulation at issue is narrowly tailored to

serve or promote a compelling government

interest.” United States v. Caronia, 703 F.3d

149, 163 (2d Cir. 2012). Such restrictions are

“presumptively invalid.” Id.

National Institute for Family and Life Advocates v.

James, at 119.

Similarly, in National Institute of Family and

Life Advocates v. Raoul, 685 F. Supp. 3d 688 (N.D.

Ill. 2023), the district court permanently enjoined the

state of Illinois from attempting to enforce SB 1909,

which prohibited so-called pro-life viewpoint speech

–9–

as “deceptive business practices.” The district court

stated:

SB 1909 is both stupid and very likely

unconstitutional. It is stupid because its own

supporter admitted it was unneeded and was

unsupported by evidence when challenged. It

is likely unconstitutional because it is a

blatant example of government taking the

side of whose speech is sanctionable and

whose speech is immunized — on the very

same subject no less. SB 1909 is likely classic

content

and

viewpoint

discrimination

prohibited by the First Amendment.

National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v.

Raoul, at 695.

This is exactly what the Washington coercive

“misinformation enforcement” disciplinary scheme

has wrought. The viewpoint discrimination is

obvious. Here, the Washington Respondents “chose

sides” in favor of experimental COVID-19 gene

therapy injections with terrible safety profiles, and

unconstitutionally chose to coercively chill the speech

regarding other perfectly safe, legal and successful

therapies of which they disapproved. See infra,

section III.

Medicine is not “one size fits all.” Viewpoint

discrimination is particularly dangerous in the

medical field, where often no objective consensus

exists among possible treatment options. Chiles v

Salazar, supra, illustrates the lack of consensus

surrounding hotly debated treatments such as crosssex hormones and puberty blockers promoted for

children

suffering

from

gender

dysphoria.

– 10 –

Respondents in this case suffer from similar bias and

prejudice regarding COVID-19 treatments.

Medical science is a human endeavor. That

means it is necessarily infused with an

inherent disorder, messiness, bias, animus,

and lack of objectivity. The philosophers of

science have it wrong to the extent they

believe that psychology, sociology, prejudice,

and even sociopathology play no role in the

growth of medical knowledge (or the lack

thereof).4

In contrast, in Otto v. City of Boca Raton, 981

F.3d 854 (11th Cir. 2020), reh. denied, 41 F.4th 1271

(11th Cir. 2022), the Eleventh Circuit found that a

city ordinance which attempted to ban certain

categories of therapeutic speech regarding sexual

orientation and gender dysphoria violated the First

Amendment.5

Similarly, in Assn. of Am. Physicians &

Surgeons Educ. Found. v. Am. Bd. Of Internal Med.,

103 F.4th 383 (5th Cir. 2024), the Fifth Circuit found

that the plaintiff physicians had standing to

challenge both government and private actors who

threatened to chill physician speech critical of Dr.

Anthony Fauci, lockdowns, mask mandates, Covid

vaccination, and abortion.

This Court should cure the split in the Circuits

on the side of these cases supporting free speech, the

Richard A. Jaffe. Galileo's Lawyer: Courtroom Battles in

Alternative Health, Complementary Medicine and Experimental

Treatments, 2008, p. 281.

5 Compare Otto v. City of Boca Raton with Chiles v. Salazar, 24539 (argued October 7, 2025), which raises similar issues.

4

– 11 –

First Amendment, medical freedom, and informed

consent, and reject coercive and dangerous medical

censorship.

II. By attempting to prohibit discussions

of all viable treatment options

available to the public, Washington’s

coercive medical censorship breaches

professional ethical duties of honesty,

transparency and informed consent

owed by all physicians to all patients,

and arguably constitutes professional

malpractice.

It is fundamental to the medical profession that

physicians owe high duties of transparency, honesty

and fully informed consent to their patients and the

public. Doctors must never withhold valuable

medical information from their patients, information

which may prove to be life-saving. Withholding

valuable medical information from patients because

of a coercive medical censorship regime risks

harming these patients in violation of the physician’s

Hippocratic Oath.

A.M.A. Ethics Opinion 2.1.3 states:

Withholding Information from Patients

Truthful and open communication between

physician and patient is essential for trust in

the relationship and for respect for

autonomy. Withholding pertinent medical

information from patients in the belief that

disclosure is medically contraindicated

creates a conflict between the physician’s

– 12 –

obligations to promote patient welfare and to

respect patient autonomy.6

Similarly, the A.M.A. Principles of Medical

Ethics support the obligation of physicians to

continuously

educate

themselves

and

the

community:

III. A physician shall … recognize a

responsibility to seek changes in those [legal]

requirements which are contrary to the best

interests of the patient. …

V.

A physician shall continue to study,

apply, and advance scientific knowledge,

maintain a commitment to

medical

education,

make

relevant

information

available to patients, colleagues, and the

public, …

VII. A physician shall recognize a responsibility

to

participate

in

activities

contributing to the improvement of the

community and the betterment of public

health. (emphases added).7

A.K. Edwin writes in PubMed that “withholding

information from a competent patient is a violation

of the doctor’s role as a fiduciary and is not ever

justified.”8

https://code-medical-ethics.ama-assn.org/ethics-opinions/withho

lding-information-patients

7 https://code-medical-ethics.ama-assn.org/principles

8 A.K. Edwin, “Don’t Lie but Don’t Tell the Whole Truth: The

Therapeutic Privilege – Is it Ever Justified?” Ghana Med J.

42(4):156-161, Dec. 2008. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/

6

– 13 –

California Medical Association President Robert

E. Wailes, M.D. issued the following statement in

response to recent world events:

Physicians take our Hippocratic oath –

“do no harm” – to heart. It is seared on our

souls, and because of that, we commit our

lives to healing patients, neighbors and

communities.

Recent events demand that we reinforce

the notion that nothing should be allowed to

disrupt the physician-patient relationship

and our ability to mend broken bones,

prevent disease and cure ailments.9

Coercively threatening a physician from openly

discussing viable, less-invasive and statistically

successful treatment options violates ethical duties

owed to patients such as honesty, transparency, and

full disclosure.

III. The Washington enforcement scheme

constitutes egregious and unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination in

favor of the now largely discredited

government narrative that certain

experimental mRNA gene therapy

injections for COVID-19 are “safe and

effective.” However, large amounts of

recent and highly reliable scientific

PMC2673833/

9

California Medication Association. “Statement: Medical

professionals and facilities should always be off limit to attack.”

https://www.cmadocs.org/newsroom/news/view/ArticleId/49709/

Statement-Medical-professionals-and-facilities-should-alwaysbe-off-limit-to-attack

– 14 –

research have shown that these

experimental mRNA gene therapy

injections (a.k.a. “vaccines”) do not

stop transmission of COVID-19 to

others, have terrible documented

safety profiles, and are neither “safe”

nor “effective.” Coercively compelled

governmental speech is particularly

egregious when it is incorrect and

dangerous. The Washington “misinformation

enforcement”

disciplinary

scheme chills any physician/patient

discussion of safer and more successful treatment options, thus violating

the core Hippocratic Oath.

It is now becoming widely known that the

experimental mRNA injections introduced to treat

COVID-19 are neither “safe,” on account of their

terrible safety profiles, nor “effective” (see, e.g.,

footnotes 10–14, 16, 19–24), because they do not stop

transmission of the virus. Therefore, these

experimental drugs offer no protection for other

people. They are personal medical treatments only.

In response to these facts, government policies

and recommendations have changed. In Florida,

state Surgeon General Dr. Joseph A. Ladapo called

for a complete halt in the use of COVID-19 mRNA

“vaccines,” citing contamination concerns.10

“The Surgeon General outlined concerns regarding nucleic

acid contaminants in the approved Pfizer and Moderna COVID19 mRNA vaccines, particularly in the presence of lipid

nanoparticle complexes, and Simian Virus 40 (SV40)

promoter/enhancer DNA.” “Florida State Surgeon General Calls

for Halt in the Use of COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines.”

10

– 15 –

In Louisiana, led by state Surgeon General Dr.

Ralph Abraham, Louisiana health officials are

shifting away from the policy of promoting COVID19 and flu vaccinations, citing concerns about the

efficacy and safety of these vaccines.11 The Louisiana

Health Department realizes that medicine is not “one

size fits all.” All patients are different, and have

different

medical

needs.

Therefore,

it

is

inappropriate and possibly medical malpractice to

issue blanket medical treatment recommendations to

broad categories of patients, without first assessing

and examining each patient individually, and

without diagnosing their unique medical conditions

by a qualified medical professional.

There has been a wave of bills introduced in

state legislatures recently, including Iowa, Kentucky,

Montana, Minnesota, Idaho and many others, which

seek to limit or ban entirely the administration of

experimental mRNA injections or gene therapy, due

to the terrible safety profiles of these experimental

drugs, and to make Nobel Prize-winning Ivermectin

available over the counter.12

https://www.floridahealthgov/newsroom/2024/01/20240103-haltuse-covid19-mrna-vaccines.pr.html

11 “Citing concerns about the efficacy and safety of vaccines,

state officials will instead encourage residents to consult their

doctor about vaccination, Louisiana Department of Health

spokesperson Emma Herrock said in a statement. ‘In general,

the department is shifting away from one-size-fits-all

paternalistic guidance to a more informative approach aimed at

enabling individuals, in consultation with their doctor, to make

better decisions for themselves,’ the statement said.” “Louisiana

health officials ‘shifting away’ from policy of promoting COVID,

flu vaccinations.” https://www.nola.com/news/politics/vaccinelouisiana-policy-covid-flu/article_3e0521bc-c096-11ef-bfd3-fb389

831770e.html

12 Iowa House File 712, Bill SF360; Kentucky House Bill 469;

– 16 –

Many European countries, including Finland,

Sweden, Denmark, the United Kingdom and

Slovakia have taken similar actions in limiting or

eliminating their previous blanket mRNA injection

recommendations.13, 14

Unfortunately, the Respondents in this case

relied upon the now-disproven “safe and effective”

narrative in creating their disciplinary enforcement

scheme, which favors the experimental mRNA

injections.

In Texas v. Becerra, 89 F.4th 529 (5th Cir. 2024),

the Fifth Circuit found that HHS lacked statutory

authority to mandate any specific type of medical

treatments, and upheld the injunction issued by the

lower court15 in favor of a group of obstetricians,

gynecologists, and other medical professionals.

In Medical Professionals for Informed Consent v.

Bassett, 78 Misc. 3d 482 (Sup. Ct. Onandaga Cty.

Montana House Bill 371; Idaho Senate Bill 1036.

13 “Finland joins Sweden and Denmark in limiting Moderna

COVID-19 vaccine,” https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/

finland-pauses-use-moderna-covid-19-vaccine-young-men-202110-07/

“England Refuses to Offer COVID Shots to Kids Under 12,

While US Cities Mandate Them. Who’s Right?”: “... the

UKHSA’s decision puts England in line with several other

European countries—including Sweden, Finland, Norway, and

Denmark—that do not offer or recommend mRNA vaccines to

healthy young children.” https://fee.org/articles/england-refuses-tooffer-covid-shots-to-kids-under-12-while-us-cities-mandate-themwho-s-right/

14 Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D. “Slovak Government Report Calls

for Ban of ‘Dangerous’ mRNA Vaccines,” Science, Public Health

Policy and the Law. https://publichealthpolicyjournal.com/

slovak-government-report-calls-for-ban-of-dangerous-mrna-vacc

ines/

15 Texas v. Becerra, 577 F.Supp. 3d 527 (N.D. Tex. 2021).

– 17 –

2023), the court granted a declaratory judgment to a

group of doctors and nurses which held that the

hospital and other “covered entities” vaccine

mandate ordered by the New York State Department

of Health (“DOH”) was null, void, and of no effect.

The vaccine mandate was then dropped by the New

York DOH, and the appeal declared moot.

The CDC’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting

System (VAERS) data show that as of December 5,

2025, there have been 38,913 deaths in America

alone, which thousands of medical professionals

have independently attributed to fatal adverse

reactions to these experimental mRNA injections,

a.k.a. “vaccines.”16 This cannot reasonably be

considered “safe” or “effective.” Additionally, VAERS

recorded 221,872 hospitalizations, 157,453 urgent

care visits, 249,468 doctor visits, 74,272 permanently

disabled persons, 17,981 cases of Bell’s palsy, 5,211

miscarriages,

22,420

heart

attacks,

29,097

myocarditis/pericarditis cases, and 10,996 cases of

anaphylaxis.

The American death toll attributed in the best

professional judgment of thousands of medical

professionals to these experimental mRNA injections

has now risen to an astonishing 38,913 deaths.15 This

shocks the conscience. Even if only a certain

percentage of these adverse reaction reports are

accurate, the death toll and the accompanying risks

remain unacceptably high. Full disclosure is

necessary for informed consent. In all good

conscience, how can anyone coercively require

physicians to “recommend” to their patients any drug

that could kill them, instead of discussing safer

alternatives in the physician’s best professional

16 https://openvaers.com/covid-data

– 18 –

judgment? This is an unacceptable and dangerous

consequence of the Washington Medical Commisson’s

“misinformation enforcement” policy.

These high adverse reaction statistics can

obviously form a reasonable basis for some patients

to avoid risky experimental mRNA injections in favor

of safer alternatives, in the exercise of voluntary

consent, free of coercion, and after full disclosure of

these medical risks.

But Respondents’ coercive

disciplinary scheme puts its thumb on the scale of

free and fully informed choices within the protected

doctor/patient relationship.

While this conservative estimate of 38,913

American deaths shocks the conscience, in stark

contrast is the government’s 1976 response to deaths

from the swine flu vaccine. After only 32 deaths were

attributed to the swine flu vaccine, the United States

government halted the mass vaccination campaign.17

The New York Times reported on October 13, 1976

that the swine flu program was halted in nine states

after only three deaths.18

It is very dangerous to fail to disclose to patients,

as required, this truthful and accurate medical

information in an ill-conceived medical disciplinary

scheme. This also violates the First Amendment and

the statutory informed consent rules discussed in

section IV.

Art Moore, “CDC data signaling vaccine catastrope: It took

only 32 deaths to halt 1976 shot campaign.” World Net Daily,

February 14, 2022.

https://www.wnd.com/2022/02/cdc-datasignaling-vaccine-catastrophe/

18 Harold M. Schmeck, Jr. “Swine flu program is halted in 9

states as 3 die after shots,” The New York Times, October 13,

1976. https://www.nytimes.com/1976/10/13/archives/swine-fluprogram-is-halted-in-9-states-as-3-die-after-shots.html

17

– 19 –

Japanese researchers have linked these

experimental mRNA injection side effects to 201

types of diseases.19 In a recent Japanese study,

researchers found on autopsy multiple micro-scars in

the hearts of mRNA-vaccinated patients who had

died suddenly of unexplained cardiac arrest, thus

raising the question of a link between the mRNA

injections and sudden cardiac arrest.20

Further, an alarming new Yale study shows that

COVID vaccines may cause T-cell exhaustion,

leading to an acquired immune deficiency. Could this

be “...a vaccine that weakens immunity instead of

strengthening it?”21

A authoritative new study examining the link

between the COVID-19 vaccine and Myocarditis was

just published this year. The study’s conclusion: “We

urge governments to remove the COVID-19 mRNA

products from the market due to the well-documented

risk of myocardial damage.”22

19 Lee Harding, “Japanese researchers say side effects of COVID

vaccines linked to 201 types of diseases,” Western Standard,

January 15, 2024. https://www.westernstandard.news/news/

japanese-researchers-say-side-effects-of-covid-vaccines-linkedto-201-types-of-diseases/51661

20 Tomomi Koizumi and Masao Ono, “Cardiac Multiple MicroScars: An Autopsy Study,” J Am Coll Cardiol Case Rep. 30(5)

10383, March 2025. https://www.jacc.org/doi/10.1016/j.jaccas.

2024.103083

21 https://x.com/drsimonegold/status/1892626222250639592

22 M. Nathaniel Mead, et al. “Myocarditis after SARS-CoV-2

infection and COVID-19 vaccination: Epidemiology, outcomes,

and new perspectives,” Intl. J. Cardiovascular Rsch. &

Innovation, 3(1) 1-43, Jan-Mar 2025. https://cardiovascularresearch-and-innovation.reseaprojournals.com/Articles/myocar

ditis-after-sars-cov-2-infection-and-covid-19-vaccination-epidem

iology-outcomes-and-new-perspectives

– 20 –

Another recent study highlighted that Pfizer's

post-marketing surveillance analysis showed a

miscarriage rate of 81%, a 5-fold increase in

stillbirths, an 8-fold increase in neonatal deaths, and

a 13% incidence of breastfeeding complications in

newborns whose mothers received the COVID

shots:23

Results: The CDC/FDA’s safety signals were

breached for all 37 AEs following COVID-19

vaccination

in

pregnancy

including

miscarriage, chromosomal abnormalities,

fetal malformations, cervical insufficiency,

fetal arrhythmia, hemorrhage in pregnancy,

premature

labor/delivery,

preeclampsia,

preterm rupture of membranes, placental

abnormalities, fetal growth restriction,

stillbirth, newborn asphyxia and newborn

death. Conclusions: We found unacceptably

high breaches in safety signals for 37 AEs

after COVID-19 vaccination in pregnant

women. An immediate global moratorium on

COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy is

warranted. (emphasis added)

Further, a massive new study released in March,

2025 found that among 1.7 million people, COVID19 “vaccination” increased the risk of “Inner Ear

Disorders by 237%, Menstrual Disorders by 216%,

23 James A. Thorp, et al. “Are COVID-19 Vaccines in Pregnancy

as Safe and Effective as the Medical Industrial Complex Claim?

Part I,” Science, Public Health Policy and the Law, 2/08/2025.

https://publichealthpolicyjournal.com/are-covid-19-vaccines-inpregnancy-as-safe-and-effective-as-the-medical-industrial-com

plex-claim-part-i/

– 21 –

Glaucoma by 186%, and Endometriosis by 150%,

along with many other negative side effects.”24

It is unconscionable to coercively promote such a

dangerous experimental gene therapy which does not

protect other people, and simultaneously coercively

censor other safer and effective therapies. This is

completely irrational.

Amici Curiae maintain, supported by voluminous

scientific research, that early COVID-19 treatments

with hydroxychloroquine (“HCQ”) and Ivermectin are

in fact quite safe and effective” 25, 26, 27 contrary to

24 Hong Jin Kim, et al. “Broad-Spectrum Adverse Events of

Special Interests Based on Immune Response Following

COVID-19 Vaccination: A Large-Scale Population-Based Cohort

Study,” J. Clin. Med. 14(5) 1767, March 6, 2025.

https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0383/14/5/1767

25 Gold, S., M.D., J.D. “A White Paper on Hydroxychloroquine,”

is the culmination of months-long research from all sources. It

explains how Americans have come to be in the grip of fear. All

the myths and all the misconceptions about a safe, generic drug

that has been FDA approved for 65 years, given to pregnant

women, breast-feeding women, children, the elderly, and the

immune-compromised for years and decades without

complication, are finally put to rest. https://americasfront

linedoctors.org/index/covid/hydroxychloroquine/white-paper/

26 As of February 13, 2025, a global, real-time meta-analysis

includes 419 Hydroxychloroquine (“HCQ”) COVID-19 studies,

from 8,646 scientists and 591,536 patients in 59 countries, 406

studies are peer reviewed, with 402 comparing treatment and

control groups. The studies indicate a statistically significant

improvement for mortality, hospitalization, recovery, cases, and

viral clearance, and there is 72 percent less death in 16 early

treatment trials. See https://c19hcq.org/

27 As of February 13, 2025, a global, real-time meta-analysis

includes 105 Ivermectin COVID-19 studies. The studies indicate

Ivermectin reduces risk for COVID-19 with very high

confidence for mortality, ventilation, ICU admission,

hospitalization, recovery, cases and viral clearance. (No

treatment, vaccine, or intervention is 100 percent effective and

– 22 –

the incessant government narratives against such

treatment options. These are reasonable alternatives

to more dangerous experimental mRNA injections, as

determined within each protected doctor/patient

relationship.

Amici Curiae maintain, supported by voluminous

scientific research, that experimental mRNA

injections are neither “safe” nor “effective.” See

footnotes 10–14, 16, 19–24.

IV. Coercively censoring information and

alternatives to such a dangerous

experimental drug absent voluntary,

coercion-free

informed

consent

violates

well-established

constitutional free speech principles, federal

regulations, voluntary informed consent and full disclosure provisions, the

Nuremberg Code, 21 U.S.C. § 360bbb-3,

21 C.F.R. § 50.20, 21 C.F.R. § 50.25, and

45 C.F.R. § 46.116. These experimental

drugs do not prevent infection or

transmission, and therefore give no

protection to others. They are

personal medical treatments only.

Respondents’ coercive disciplinary scheme does

not comply with the applicable well-established

federal regulations governing the necessity of

informed and voluntary patient consent, completely

available.) Thus all practical, effective, and safe means should

be used based on risk/benefit analysis. Over 20 countries

adopted Ivermectin for COVID-19. Ivermectin may now be

purchased over the counter in the state of Tennessee.

https://c19ivm.org/

– 23 –

free from coercion and undue influence, and with full

disclosure of the risks. See 21 C.F.R. § 50.20, 21

C.F.R. § 50.25, and 45 C.F.R. § 46.116, also known as

the longstanding and well-established “Common

Rule.”28

These federal regulations are mandatory for both

public and private actors, embody most of the

Nuremberg principles, and apply to all experimental

drugs

issued

under

an

experimental

use

authorization “EUA” pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 360bbb3. These experimental gene therapy injections

promoted by Respondents were always only offered

under an EUA, and were never approved by the

FDA.29

Because Respondents coercively promoted an

experimental drug, these informed consent and full

disclosure regulations were also mandatory.

The detailed federal regulations mirror the

Nuremberg Code. For example, 21 C.F.R. § 50.25,

Elements of informed consent, provides:

(a) Basic elements of informed consent ... the

following information shall be provided ...

https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/regulations/

common-rule/index.html

29 On August 23, 2021, the F.D.A. issued an approval for a

COVID-19 drug called “Cominarty,” however, Cominarty was

never available in the United States. On the same day, the

F.D.A. extended the E.U.A. for the experimental mRNA drugs

which were actually in use in America. This created a great deal

of confusion. It was erroneously reported that the mRNA

injections actually in use had now been approved by the F.D.A..

However, this was not true. The E.U.A. for these experimental

mRNA injections was only extended. Therefore, all of the laws

and regulations applicable to experimental drugs are still in full

force and effect for COVID-19 “vaccines.”

28

– 24 –

(1) ... identification of any procedures which

are experimental.

(2) A description of any reasonably

foreseeable risks or discomforts ...

(3) A description of any benefits to the

subject ...

(4) A disclosure of appropriate alternative

procedures or courses of treatment ...

(8) A statement that participation is

voluntary, that refusal to participate will

involve no penalty or loss of benefits ...

(b) Additional elements of informed consent:

(1)-(6)

The death toll as recorded by VAERS is at an

unacceptably high level. Patients are entitled to be

informed of these “substantial” risks. See also Grimes

v. Kennedy Krieger Institute, Inc., 366 Md. 29 (Md.

2001) enforcing principles of informed consent and

Nuremberg in a Maryland poisoning case.

Federal law, incorporating most of the

Nuremberg Code, guarantees that experimental

drugs must only be offered on a voluntary basis after

full disclosure of risks, and with voluntary informed

consent free from coercion. See 21 U.S.C. § 360bbb-3,

21 C.F.R. § 50.20, 21 C.F.R. § 50.25, and 45 C.F.R. §

46.116. Consent can never be coerced.

It is well-established that federal law requires of

both public and private actors that the

administration of experimental biological agents are

strictly voluntary, requiring informed consent and

after the full disclosure of risks. That this is fully

binding upon Respondents is beyond debate, thus

creating Respondents’ liability under 42 U.S.C. §

1983.

– 25 –

Indeed, the Nuremberg Code, an international

code of ethical principles adopted in the aftermath of

war crimes committed by the German Nazis during

WWII, was expressly intended to prohibit

involuntary medical experimentation upon humans.

The “informed consent” Nuremberg principles have

been largely codified domestically through the

adoption of 21 C.F.R. § 50.20, 21 C.F.R. § 50.25, and

45 C.F.R. Part 46, entitled “Protection of Human

Subjects” also known as the “Common Rule.”30

V.

Washington’s draconian interference

with the protected doctor/patient

relationship threatens to destroy

Petitioners’ ethical medical practices

and gives Petitioners firm standing to

safeguard their First, Fifth and

Seventh Amendment rights of access

to courts to redress their grievances.

This is not a typical standing case. The very

livelihoods of Petitioners are at stake here, as are the

very lives of their patients. This is about saving lives.

Petitioners enjoy the right of access to courts to

redress their grave grievances under the First, Fifth

and

Seventh

Amendments.

This

standing

determination

has

life

or

death

medical

consequences, and as such, Petitioners have an

extremely strong case for standing.

Medically erroneous and often fatal decisions in

the real world stemming from censorship of accurate

medical information are extensively discussed by

distinguished doctors in Peter R. Breggin, MD and

30 https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/regulations/

common-rule/index.html

– 26 –

Ginger Ross Breggin’s book: COVID-19 and the

Global Predators: We are the Prey.31 Given that

human lives are at stake here, any doubt should be

resolved in favor of Petitioners’ standing under these

circumstances.

In Assn. of Am. Physicians & Surgeons Educ.

Found. v. Am. Bd. Of Internal Med., 103 F.4th 383

(5th Cir. 2024), the Fifth Circuit found that the

plaintiff physicians had standing to challenge both

government and private actors who threatened to

chill physician speech critical of Dr. Anthony Fauci,

lockdowns, mask mandates, COVID vaccinations,

and abortions. In June Medical Services L.L.C. v.

Russo, 591 U.S. 299 (2020), this Court agreed that

physicians had standing to protect their medical

practices and the rights of their patients where the

physician’s livelihoods were threatened by an

unconstitutional law.

Numerous other federal courts have found

standing in much less compelling circumstances. In

Daily Wire, LLC v. U.S. Department of State, 733 F.

Supp. 3d 566 (E.D. Tex. 2024), media organizations

and the state of Texas sued the U.S. State

Department, alleging that government technology to

counter propaganda and disinformation infringed

upon their free speech rights under First

Amendment and violated the Administrative

Procedures Act. The Court held that Texas and the

two media companies had standing.

In Pernell v. Fla. Board of Governors of State

University System, 641 F. Supp. 3d 1218 (N.D. Fla.

2022), the court held that professors and students

31 Peter R. Breggin, MD and Ginger Ross Breggin. COVID-19

and the Global Predators: We are the Prey, 2021.

– 27 –

who either intended to teach course content that

violated an IFA mandatory content law, or would

self-censor to refrain from teaching, had standing to

seek a preliminary injunction and were likely to

succeed on the merits of their First Amendment

challenge. See also Meese v. Keene, 481 U.S. 465,

473–75 (1987) (plaintiff senator had standing to

challenge the government's labeling as “political

propaganda” certain films he wished to show,

because this label caused the plaintiff “risk of injury

to his reputation”); Initiative and Referendum Inst. v.

Walker, 450 F.3d 1082, 1086, 1107 (10th Cir. 2006);

Dunn v. City of Fort Valley, 464 F. Supp. 3d 1347

(M.D. Ga. 2020); Book People, Inc. v. Wong, 91 F.4th

318, 330 (5th Cir. 2024); Davis v. FEC, 554 U.S. 724,

734 (2008); and Allen v. School Bd. for Santa Rosa

Cnty., Fla., 782 F. Supp. 2d 1304, 1314 (N.D. Fla.

2011), all finding the plaintiffs had standing.

Much more compelling life or death circumstances supporting Petitioners’ standing to sue are

presented by this case.

A similar approach protecting the attorney/client

relationship was taken in Legal Services Corp. v.

Velazquez, 531 U.S. 533 (2001), where legal aid

attorneys

challenged

a

funding

restriction

prohibiting them from attacking certain welfare

regulations. The court held that this was an

unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination which

violated the First Amendment and damaged the

attorney/client relationship. Chiles v. Salazar, supra,

is challenging a restriction on therapeutic speech

within the counselor/client relationship, a restriction

upheld by the Tenth Circuit and now on appeal to

this Court. The Chiles challenge is similar to the

successful

challenge

to

therapeutic

speech

– 28 –

restrictions in Otto v. City of Boca Raton, 981 F.3d

854 (11th Cir. 2020), reh. denied, 41 F.4th 271 (11th

Cir. 2022).

CONCLUSION

The disciplinary scheme imposing coercive

medical

censorship

and

the

Washington

misinformation enforcement policy upon which it is

based violates the First Amendment, violates

National Institute of Family & Life Advocates v.

Becerra, supra, violates ethical and professional

standards, violates regulations mandating the duties

of honesty, transparency, and fully informed consent

owed to all patients, and puts patient lives at risk —

all of which can cause great harms. The petition for

certiorari should be granted.

Respectfully submitted,

DR. SIMONE GOLD, M. D., J.D.

DAVID A. DALIA

Counsel of Record

Attorney at Law

700 Camp Street

New Orleans, LA 70130

(504) 524-5541

davidadalia@gmail.com

Counsel for Amici Curiae,

America’s Frontline Doctors and

Dr. Simone Gold, M.D., J.D.

December 23, 2025