District Judge Blocks California’s COVID ‘Misinformation’ Law

A federal judge blocked the California law that permitted doctors to be punished for sharing alleged crimes. “misinformation” Learn more about COVID.

U.S. District Judge William Shubb ruled Wednesday Assembly Bill 2098The Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom signed the document in September.

“Because the definition of misinformation ‘fails to provide a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice of what is prohibited, [and] is so standardless that it authorizes or encourages seriously discriminatory enforcement,’ the provision is unconstitutionally vague,” Shubb wrote. “Accordingly, the court concludes that plaintiffs have demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of their vagueness challenges.”

Five doctors were involved in the lawsuit against Governor in Hoeg v. Newsom The law was unconstitutional according to the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, argued the plaintiffs. Another related case is Hoang v. Bonta, Similar concerns were raised.

The law became effective January 1.

It described COVID misinformation as “false information that is contradicted by contemporary scientific consensus.” Doctors were forbidden from giving medical advice “misinformation or disinformation related to COVID-19, including false or misleading information regarding the nature and risks of the virus, its prevention and treatment; and the development, safety, and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines.”

The court’s decision suspends the law while any legal appeal seeks to overturn the ruling.

The New Civil Liberties Alliance, a non-partisan, non-profit civil rights organization, represented the five doctors involved in the case. statement Celebrate the court’s decision.

“NCLA is gratified Judge Shubb has recognized that AB 2098, which seeks to punish California doctors for giving patients information that departs from the so-called contemporary scientific consensus about Covid, creates an impossible standard for physicians to follow and would result in silencing physicians who disagree with state orthodoxy,” Jenin Younces, litigation counsel at the NCLA said.

“The speed with which he issued his decision no doubt reflects the significance of the constitutional problems the law presents, as well as the negative consequences it would have for doctor-patient relationships,” He added.

Greg Dolin, senior litigation counsel at NCLA, also pointed out the issues with the legislation.

“This Act is a blatant attempt to silence doctors whose views, though based on thorough scientific research, deviate from the government-approved ‘party line,’” Dolin stated. “At no point has the State of California been able to articulate the line between permissible and impermissible speech, further illustrating how problematic the statute is. NCLA is pleased the Court recognized all the problems with AB2098 and enjoined this unconstitutional law.”

Aaron Keriaty (one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit) also supported the decision.

“The ruling bodes well for our case: it indicates that our arguments that this law is unconstitutional have strong pre-trial facial plausibility,” He tweeted.

2/ The ruling bodes well in our case because it shows that our arguments that the law is unconstitutional are supported by strong pre-trial facial plausibility. This is a positive development, though we should not get ahead of ourselves or try to predict what the final outcome will be.

— Aaron Kheriaty, MD (@akheriaty) January 26, 2023

Tracy Hoeg is another plaintiff in this case. stated In the lawsuit, she was “afraid of saying something to my patients that I know is consistent with the current scientific literature but may not yet be accepted by the California Medical Board.” Physicians should “feel free to speak truthfully with their patients if they wish to gain and maintain their trust,” She spoke.