Quantcast

Lawsuit challenges California’s new restrictions on doctors treating COVID patients

NORTHERN CALIFORNIA RECORD

Sunday, December 22, 2024

Lawsuit challenges California’s new restrictions on doctors treating COVID patients

Lawsuits
Suhr

Suhr | Liberty Justice Center

A new law, AB 2098, signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom in September is prompting questions about its impact on free speech and the degree to which it impedes how doctors communicate with their patients.

While the governor included a supplement to say the law only applies to COVID-19, its potentially broad effect on patient treatment has prompted a lawsuit, McDonald v. Lawson, that argues AB 2098 is unconstitutional, a violation of the First Amendment.

A motion for preliminary injunction was filed Oct. 6, and the case has been assigned to Judge Fred Slaughter of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Daniel Suhr, who is lead counsel on the case and managing attorney for the Liberty Justice Center, told the Northern California Record.

“Our experience with Covid has shown how important it is to give doctors and scientists space to experiment and develop new ideas and new treatments,” Suhr said. “We have seen so many times over the course of this pandemic that the official policy on masks or school closures, or any number of topics has changed.

“So the idea, now, that the government is going to come in and force doctors to only adopt the current so-called scientific consensus, would really harm patients and the American people more broadly because it would prevent that evolution of scientific and medical knowledge for better outcomes.”

AB 2098, which is set to go into effect Jan. 1, would make California the first state in the nation with a law meant take legal action against doctors treating COVID-19.

Arguing against Gov. Newsom’s supplement to AB 2098, the lawsuit cites the Ninth Circuit case, United States v. Wunsch, 84 F.3d 1110, 1118 (9th Cir. 1996). “[I]t would not matter if the Governor had any such authority, because an unconstitutional speech restriction cannot be saved by the announcement that it will be enforced in a narrow manner,” the lawsuit states.

The lawsuit was filed on Oct. 4.

“We are asking the court for expedited relief, to hear and decide the preliminary injunction before the end of the year,” Suhr said.

ORGANIZATIONS IN THIS STORY

More News