The Supreme Court on Wednesday declined to hear an emergency request from Children’s Health Defense, an organization founded by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., seeking to shield Washington state doctors under investigation for spreading “misinformation” about COVID-19.
Justice Elena Kagan, acting on behalf of the court, rejected the application without requesting a response from the state, indicating the case lacked sufficient legal merit.
Rick Jaffe, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, expressed disappointment, saying, “We hope that one day the Supreme Court will clearly state that the Constitution does not permit the government to sanction the public viewpoint speech of physicians.”
Robert F. Kennedy Jr., recently announced as President-elect Donald Trump’s choice for Secretary of Health and Human Services, was listed as one of the lawyers on the application. Kennedy’s group and its co-plaintiffs argued that investigations targeting doctors for their views on COVID-19 violated their First Amendment rights.
The Washington Medical Commission is investigating two doctors, Richard Eggleston and Thomas Siler, who joined the case. During the pandemic, both doctors promoted assertions that COVID-19 vaccines were ineffective. A federal judge, in declining to block the investigations, noted these actions in the ruling.
The plaintiffs claimed that such investigations chilled free speech and deprived the public of diverse perspectives during a public health crisis. Lower courts, including the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, previously rejected their bid to halt the state-led inquiries.
“The enforcement actions not only chill speech but also deprive the public of critical viewpoints necessary for informed debate, especially during a public health crisis,” Kennedy and his legal team wrote in their filings.
The Supreme Court’s refusal to intervene upholds the lower court rulings and allows the investigations by the Washington Medical Commission to proceed. This decision highlights the judiciary’s unwillingness to broadly reinterpret First Amendment protections in cases involving public health and misinformation.
