Doctors’ COVID-19 Misinformation Lawsuit Dismissed by Ninth Circuit, Citing Ongoing State Proceedings
SEATTLE – A federal appeals court has dealt a significant blow to a group of doctors and former NBA player Robert Swift, dismissing their lawsuit challenging a Washington state investigation into their alleged dissemination of COVID-19 misinformation. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the case is barred by the Younger abstention doctrine, a legal principle that prevents federal courts from interfering in ongoing state judicial proceedings. This decision effectively halts the federal challenge, leaving the doctors to pursue their claims solely within the Washington state court system.
The lawsuit, initially filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, contested the Washington Medical Commission’s (WMC) investigations into the physicians’ conduct. The doctors and Swift argue that the investigations infringe upon their First Amendment rights to free speech. The WMC initiated these investigations in response to allegations that the medical professionals were spreading false and misleading information about COVID-19, its treatment, and preventive measures. The plaintiffs contend that their statements were protected opinions and that the state’s actions constitute an overreach, chilling legitimate medical discourse.
The Ninth Circuit’s decision, authored by Judge Milan D. Smith Jr., acknowledged the plaintiffs’ strong disagreement with the WMC’s practices. However, the court emphasized the importance of the Younger abstention doctrine in maintaining a balance between federal and state judicial authority. The Younger doctrine, derived from the Supreme Court case Younger v. Harris, dictates that federal courts should generally refrain from interfering with ongoing state proceedings, particularly those involving important state interests. The court found that the WMC investigations qualify as ongoing state judicial proceedings, triggering the Younger doctrine and requiring dismissal of the federal lawsuit.
The core of the plaintiffs’ argument rested upon the claim that the WMC’s investigations were conducted in bad faith and intended to harass them for expressing dissenting views on COVID-19. However, the Ninth Circuit rejected this argument, stating that the mere allegation of bad faith or harassment does not automatically overcome the Younger abstention doctrine. The court emphasized that the plaintiffs have adequate avenues to raise their First Amendment concerns within the state court proceedings, and that these existing channels should be exhausted before seeking federal intervention. This ruling underscores the importance of allowing state courts to first address issues involving state law and regulatory processes.
The Ninth Circuit also dismissed the claim brought by Robert Swift, the former NBA player, who alleged that the WMC’s investigation of the doctors infringed on his right to receive information. The court held that Swift lacked standing to challenge the investigation, as he was not himself the target of any WMC action. This reinforces the principle that individuals must demonstrate a direct injury to themselves in order to have a valid claim in federal court. Swift’s connection to the case stemmed from his association with one of the doctors, whose medical advice he sought and followed.
This dismissal represents a significant setback for the doctors and Swift, effectively limiting their immediate legal options to the ongoing state court proceedings. The Ninth Circuit’s decision underscores the high bar required to overcome the Younger abstention doctrine and reinforces the principle of respecting the autonomy of state courts in addressing matters within their jurisdiction. The case highlights the tension between First Amendment rights and the state’s interest in regulating medical practice and protecting public health, a tension that will continue to be debated in courts across the country. While this decision provides a degree of clarity regarding federal intervention in ongoing state disciplinary actions, the broader conversation about the limits of free speech in the context of public health emergencies remains far from resolved. The outcome of the state court proceedings will likely shape the future trajectory of similar challenges nationwide.
