Children’s Health Defense (CHD) on Nov. 22 petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a second time to intervene in a case involving disciplinary actions taken against physicians who expressed dissenting views on COVID-19 policies.
The petition seeks a pause on disciplinary measures enforced by the Washington Medical Commission (WMC) and other state authorities, which have targeted doctors for questioning government-endorsed COVID-19 protocols. CHD contends that these disciplinary actions have created a chilling effect on medical professionals’ ability to speak freely about COVID-19 treatments, vaccines, and policies.
On Nov. 20, Associate Justice Elena Kagan rejected the plaintiffs’ first request. CHD attorneys submitted the second request to Associate Justice Clarence Thomas. Rick Jaffe one of the attorneys representing the plaintiffs, said that although the practice is “disfavored,” Supreme Court rules allow petitioners to resubmit applications for injunctions.
The case originates from a complaint filed in federal court against Washington State officials and the WMC. The lawsuit alleges that since September 2021, the WMC has investigated and sanctioned physicians for publicly sharing opinions about COVID-19 that deviate from the prevailing narrative.
CHD asserts these investigations disproportionately targeted doctors who raised concerns about vaccine safety, promoted early treatment protocols, or criticized lockdown measures.
Dr. Richard Eggleston, one of the lead plaintiffs, is a longtime Washington-based physician with over 50 years of experience. According to the complaint, Dr. Eggleston was investigated for his statements questioning the efficacy and safety of COVID-19 vaccines and advocating for patient choice in treatment options.
He claims the WMC’s actions were designed to punish him for his opinions and deter others from challenging government policies. Other plaintiffs include healthcare professionals who faced similar threats to their medical licenses for raising concerns about COVID-19 mitigation strategies, including masking mandates and the dismissal of natural immunity as a factor in public health decision-making.
CHD’s complaint argues that the disciplinary measures against physicians represent an unconstitutional suppression of free speech. According to the lawsuit, the WMC has prosecuted approximately 60 physicians since 2021 for expressing views that conflict with mainstream COVID-19 policies. Many of these doctors have been sanctioned or are under investigation, with some facing the possibility of losing their licenses.
CHD says these actions have silenced vital dissent within the medical community, depriving patients of access to diverse medical perspectives. The lawsuit also highlights the growing politicization of medical boards, which CHD argues have transformed into enforcers of government orthodoxy rather than independent regulators of medical ethics. This shift, according to CHD, undermines the foundational principles of evidence-based medicine and open scientific debate.
In its petition to the Supreme Court, CHD attorneys frame the case as a pivotal test of First Amendment protections. The organization argues that doctors’ speech on public health matters constitutes core political speech deserving the highest level of constitutional protection. The lawsuit further asserts that the actions of the WMC violate the “compelled speech” doctrine, as physicians are effectively forced to conform to state-approved narratives or risk professional retribution.
CHD contends that such coercion is incompatible with a free and democratic society. CHD is asking the Supreme Court to issue an emergency stay, which would prevent further disciplinary actions against the plaintiffs while the case is litigated. The organization warns that without intervention, the chilling effect on medical professionals will only deepen, with dire consequences for public health and informed consent.
The case has significant implications for the medical community and the broader public. Critics of the WMC’s actions argue that suppressing dissenting opinions limits the range of information available to patients and stifles innovation in medical treatment.
Dr. Pierre Kory, a critical care specialist and prominent advocate for alternative COVID-19 treatments, has spoken out about the dangers of silencing physicians.
“When doctors can’t speak freely, patients suffer,” Dr. Kory said in an interview. “Medicine thrives on debate, not conformity.”
The complaint also raises questions about the role of regulatory bodies during public health emergencies. While proponents of strict oversight argue that combating misinformation is essential to protecting public health, critics warn that conflating dissent with misinformation can lead to authoritarian overreach.
CHD’s legal team emphasizes that protecting free speech within the medical profession is a constitutional issue and a matter of public interest. The organization argues that open discourse is critical to ensuring that public health policies are evidence-based, transparent, and subject to rigorous scrutiny.
CHD’s lawsuit is part of a broader effort to push back against what it describes as an unprecedented wave of censorship during the COVID-19 pandemic. The organization has filed multiple lawsuits challenging government actions that it claims have stifled free speech, including cases involving social media censorship and mandates targeting unvaccinated individuals.
The petition to the Supreme Court comes amid growing concerns about the role of tech platforms and medical boards in regulating speech. In a related case, Missouri v. Biden, courts have scrutinized government efforts to influence social media companies’ content moderation practices. CHD views these cases as interconnected, arguing that they represent a coordinated effort to suppress dissent under the guise of combating misinformation.
The Supreme Court’s decision on whether to grant CHD’s petition could have far-reaching consequences for the medical profession, public health policy, and constitutional law. A ruling in favor of CHD would bolster First Amendment protections for physicians and potentially set a precedent limiting the authority of medical boards to penalize dissenting opinions.
Conversely, a denial of the petition could embolden regulatory bodies to continue cracking down on speech that challenges official narratives, further narrowing the scope of acceptable discourse in medicine. CHD’s legal team has framed the case as a defining moment for free speech in America.
