Supreme Court Rejects Appeal in COVID ‘Misinformation’ Case, but Doctors Say They Still Won
The U.S. Supreme Court this week declined without comment to review Stockton v. Brown — but only after the WMC lifted the disciplinary charges it had filed against two of the doctors in the case.
The U.S. Supreme Court this week declined to hear a key medical free speech case involving basketball hall-of-famer John Stockton and several doctors who alleged that the Washington Medical Commission’s (WMC) COVID-19 “misinformation” policies violated their First Amendment free speech rights.
The court declined, without comment, to review Stockton v. Brown — but only after the WMC lifted the disciplinary charges it had filed against two of the doctors in the case.
Plaintiffs included Drs. Richard Eggleston and Thomas T. Siler, who were sanctioned by the WMC for their pandemic-related speech, and Dr. Daniel Moynihan, who alleged the WMC’s threats “chilled” his speech on pandemic-related topics.
Stockton, co-host of “The Ultimate Assist Podcast,” and Children’s Health Defense (CHD) were also plaintiffs. Washington Attorney General Nick Brown and WMC Executive Director Kyle S. Karinen, a lawyer, were the defendants.
In May 2024, a federal court dismissed the lawsuit, finding that the First Amendment doesn’t protect physicians’ public speech because it is part of medical conduct.
In November 2024 and again in January 2025, the Supreme Court rejected emergency requests for a stay.
In September 2025, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal but did not consider the First Amendment questions in the case. The plaintiffs appealed to the Supreme Court.
Attorney Rick Jaffe, who represented the plaintiffs, called the Supreme Court’s choice not to hear the case “outrageous.”
But Jaffe said the unreported part of the story is what happened the month before, when the WMC withdrew its statement of charges against Eggleston and Siler, which he called a victory.
“Withdrawal of those charges was the main practical goal of the state litigation concerning these doctors and this federal case … once the Commission rescinded the charges, that was the win,” Jaffe said.
On his blog, Jaffe wrote, “The doctors being prosecuted by the state beat the state down. No sanction, no hearing, just three years of litigation with the state withdrawing their ill-conceived unconstitutional actions and then begging the Supreme Court not to get involved, saying that they learned their lesson.”
Jaffe said the Supreme Court’s decision was a setback because the court had the opportunity to issue a ruling that would have contributed to precedent protecting professional speech.
“As a lawyer who is trying to shape First Amendment law, the cert denial was both surprising and bitterly disappointing,” Jaffe said.
But efforts to protect medical free speech are not over, Jaffe said. Eggleston and Siler are still pursuing a civil rights claim against WMC employees, while other medical free speech lawsuits remain pending.
“We’re not done,” Jaffe said.
Another CHD medical free speech lawsuit still pending
Jaffe also represents the plaintiffs in Kory v. Bonta, another medical free speech lawsuit supported by CHD.
Filed in 2024, the lawsuit builds on Hoang v. Bonta, a CHD-supported lawsuit that challenged a California law allowing the Medical Board of California to discipline doctors who disseminate “misinformation” about COVID-19 for engaging in unprofessional conduct.
Hoang v. Bonta resulted in a successful injunction blocking the law. The law was later repealed.
Kory v. Bonta is a follow-up to that successful challenge. The suit alleges that even though the California legislature repealed Assembly Bill 2098, the Medical Board of California continues to target COVID-19 “misinformation” under its general “standard of care” authority and continues to threaten physicians with disciplinary proceedings.
Three medical professionals — Dr. Brian Tyson, a board-certified family practitioner who owns an urgent care facility; Dr. LeTrinh Hoang, a pediatric osteopathic physician; and Dr. Pierre Kory, president emeritus of the Independent Medical Alliance — launched the lawsuit.
Until last month, Kory v. Bonta had been on administrative hold at the Supreme Court since June 2025. Previously, lower courts rejected the plaintiffs’ petition for an injunction against the Medical Board of California, leading them to file an appeal to the Supreme Court.
In April, the Supreme Court declined to review the case. However, the lawsuit remains active, as the court’s denial related only to the plaintiffs’ request for an injunction. Jaffe said the case is “still in play” as a result.
“The Supreme Court denied cert in Kory v. Bonta on April 20. That case went up on the Ninth Circuit’s affirmance of the denial of our preliminary injunction … There has been no final judgment on the merits, and a cert denial on a PI [preliminary injunction] appeal is not a ruling on the merits,” Jaffe wrote.
On Monday, both sides in the case filed a joint status report. The plaintiffs propose filing “a renewed motion for preliminary injunction.”
The defendants — including California Attorney General Rob Bonta and two Medical Board of California officials — are proposing to file a motion to dismiss the case. A ruling is pending.
Recent Supreme Court rulings may help the plaintiffs in Kory v. Bonta
Jaffe said that two other recent Supreme Court rulings may aid the plaintiffs in Kory v. Bonta.
In March, the court sided with a Colorado-licensed counselor in Chiles v. Salazar. The counselor had challenged the state’s law banning “conversion therapy” for minors, arguing the law violates her First Amendment right to free speech.
In its 8-1 ruling, the court said Colorado’s 2019 law wrongfully subjected Chiles to possible punishment for using talk therapy to help teenage minors struggling with their sexual orientation or gender dysphoria.
According to the ruling, state laws regulating professional speech based on viewpoint are subject to increased First Amendment scrutiny.
“Chiles held that even viewpoint speech to patients, which is treatment, is fully First Amendment-protected, meaning that strict scrutiny applies,” Jaffe said.
Last month, in First Choice Women’s Resource Centers Inc. v. Davenport, the court ruled in favor of a religious nonprofit that provided counseling and resources to pregnant women in New Jersey.
The organization sued the state, seeking to prevent the state’s attorney general, Jennifer Davenport, from demanding the organization’s donor list.
Jaffe said this ruling found that such demands impose a “chilling effect” on speech. In the case of First Choice, the organization argued that the threat of donor information being turned over to the state dissuaded potential donors from associating with the organization.
According to Jaffe, the Chiles and First Choice rulings “cut directly against the legal foundation of the lower-court rulings in Stockton” and contradict the lower courts’ rulings in Kory v. Bonta.
Jaffe said the Supreme Court may still be reluctant to issue a ruling that appears to take a clear position on vaccine choice.
“It was really a pretty easy lift for the Supreme Court” to rule in favor of the plaintiffs in the Stockton case, “based on the precedent of six weeks ago and a week ago,” Jaffe said, referring to the Chiles and First Choice rulings. “They didn’t do that, and there has to be a reason.”
“The only reason I can think of that they didn’t is, if you take a look at the mainstream coverage of the case, it was like, ‘anti-vax lawsuit this’ and ‘COVID misinformation policy upheld,’ which isn’t even true,” Jaffe said.
Public perception may have contributed to the Supreme Court’s reluctance to rule in favor of the plaintiffs in Stockton, Jaffe suggested.
“I feel that it shows that we still have a way to go in terms of convincing the broader public that we’re right,” Jaffe said.
Related articles in The Defender
Doctors, CHD Ask Supreme Court to Review Medical Free Speech Case
Doctors, Children’s Health Defense to Take Censorship Case to U.S. Supreme Court After Appeals Loss
U.S. Supreme Court Rejects Emergency Appeal in Medical Free Speech Case
CHD, Basketball Legend John Stockton and Censored Doctors Sue Washington Medical Commission
Yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, and all of that. "They still won" because what they were after was ATTENTION and online CLOUT and AGGRIEVEMENT - for fundraising efforts, to keep that litigation going - so CHD and IMA and MAHA-this and Wellness-that can keep decrying "censorship," so they can raise more money for to pay their executives and lawyers ...
End the PREP ACT, all else will be become irrelevant.