John Stockton Loses First Amendment Case Over COVID Speech Order

John Stockton usually won on the court during his illustrious career with the Utah Jazz, but the Basketball Hall of Famer’s record IN The court suffered a blow last week when a judge dismissed his First Amendment lawsuit against Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson and Washington Medical Commission Executive Director Kyle Karinen.

U.S. District Judge Thomas Rice ruled that Stockton’s case, which he brought with two doctors and Children’s Health Defense (a nonprofit organization chaired by presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr.), was without merit.

In March, the group filed a lawsuit seeking a court ruling that the commission’s investigations of licensed physicians who publish disputed claims about Covid-19 violate the First Amendment and due process rights. Under Washington law, the commission is tasked with overseeing physicians to ensure public confidence in the practice of medicine. It considers allegations of misrepresentation, fraud or dishonesty.

Stockton, 62, is not a doctor and is not regulated by the commission. However, through podcasts and interviews, he has become a public voice on Covid-19. Stockton has criticized Covid-19 vaccines and opposed masking mandates. Stockton’s refusal to wear a mask led his alma mater, Gonzaga University, to deny him admission to its 2022 basketball games due to failure to follow school rules.

Stockton, a Spokane resident, says he is “an advocate for all Washingtonians” who share his claim that “people have a First Amendment right to hear public speeches by Washington-licensed physicians who disagree with the mainstream narrative about Covid-19 . The NBA’s all-time assists leader and 10-time All-Star argued that “prosecuting doctors for presenting opinions to the public that are inconsistent with the commission’s ‘approved message’ is tantamount to the government’s silence on dissenting views.”

Rice found several errors Stockton et al. against Ferguson and Karinen.

First, he reasoned that the claims were immature, meaning they were not yet amenable to judicial review. The two doctors involved in the case have not (yet) been disciplined by the commission, which means the judge cannot determine any punishment.

Although Stockton insists that the committee’s investigation into doctors has a “chilling effect” on free speech and will “dissuade many doctors from expressing their honest opinions,” Rice stressed that Stockton and the doctors continue to publicly defend their views. Rice wrote that their support “tends to dissociate itself from any argument” and the speeches are “actually tepid.”

Rice also argued that he had to refrain from reviewing the claims. According to the so-called “junior doctrine” (from the 1971 US Supreme Court ruling Junior v. Harris), a federal court should refrain from hearing requests for judicial declarations in pending state proceedings. The commission continues to investigate the doctors who sued Stockton.

The judge added that even if Stockton’s lawsuit was mature and not subject to stay, he did not present a compelling claim. Rice emphasized that Washington and other states have “long-recognized authority to regulate the medical profession” and that authority “does not conflict with the First Amendment.” Even though the regulation covers speech, Rice emphasized that the First Amendment does not prohibit state regulation of medicine and the professions.

Stockton may appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.