Sign Up

NCLA Site Search

Cases

Høeg v. Newsom

Back to Case Finder

CASE: Tracy Høeg, M.D., et al. v. Gavin Newsom, Governor of California, in his official capacity, et al.

STATUS: Closed

NCLA ROLE: Counsel

COURTS HEARD IN: E.D. Cal.

ORIGINAL COURT: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California

DECIDING COURT: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California

OPENED: November 2, 2022

AGENCIES: CA Med Board | California Governor

FOCUS AREAS:

Due Process Violations

The due process of law guarantees a right to be held to account only through the processes of an impartial court—something administrative tribunals violate every day.

Administrative Speech Controls

The Administrative State tries to squelch speech, especially through licensing, speech bans, and speech mandates. Licensing requires one to get the government’s permission prior to speaking. Nothing was more clearly forbidden by the First Amendment than prior restraints on speech, but such controls are now commonplace.

CASE SUMMARY

NCLA represented several physicians licensed by the Medical Board of California (MBC), most of whom treat patients on a regular basis. Drs. Tracy Høeg, Ram Duriseti, Aaron Kheriaty, Pete Mazolewski, and Azadeh Khatibi alleged that Assembly Bill (AB) 2098, signed into law on September 30, 2022, violated their First Amendment rights to free speech and their Fourteenth Amendment rights to due process of law. The law interfered with the ability of doctors and their patients to freely communicate, and had been used as a weapon to intimidate and punish doctors who dissent from mainstream views. Several Plaintiffs experienced threats from other doctors and individuals on social media to use AB 2098 to have their licenses taken away, an obvious attempt to suppress the those Plaintiffs’ speech. They were put between a rock and a hard place, fearing repercussions for acting in their patients’ best interests by honestly giving them the information they believe their patients need to make informed care decisions.

U.S. Supreme Court and U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals precedents highly protect speech uttered in the context of the doctor-patient relationship, recognizing a state interest in free and open communication between doctors and patients, and the First Amendment protects expression of majority and minority views alike. AB 2098 would have deprived Plaintiffs’ patients of their First Amendment rights to receive advice and hear treatment options unfettered by professional discipline fears.

On October 1, 2023, California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed legislation repealing AB 2098, a major victory for NCLA.

OUR CLIENT

Dr. Azadeh Khatibi, Plaintiff

OUR TEAM

Jenin Younes
Litigation Counsel
John J. Vecchione
Senior Litigation Counsel
Greg Dolin
Senior Litigation Counsel
Casey Norman
Litigation Counsel

RELEVANT MATERIALS

NCLA FILINGS

Memorandum and Order Re: Motions to Dismiss

April 2, 2024 | Read More

Plaintiffs’ Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss

February 29, 2024 | Read More

Plaintiffs’ Memorandum of Law in Support of Their Position that This Case Is Not Moot

November 27, 2023 | Read More

Memorandum in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment

September 29, 2023 | Read More

Memorandum in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment

September 29, 2023 | Read More

SEE 11 FILINGS
PRESS RELEASES

In NCLA Victory, Gov. Newsom Repeals California Law Censoring Doctors’ Covid-19 Medical Advice

October 2, 2023 | Read More

Watch: A Physician with a Gag Order Is Not a Physician You Can Trust, NCLA Releases Case Video Challenging California’s AB 2098

June 8, 2023 | Read More

NCLA Amicus Brief Supports Doctors’ Suits Against California Law Censoring Covid Medical Advice

February 10, 2023 | Read More

California Judge Grants Injunction to NCLA Clients, Halts Implementation of Law Censoring Doctors

January 25, 2023 | Read More

California Doctors Sue Gov. Newsom and Calif. Medical Board over New Law Censoring Medical Advice

November 2, 2022 | Read More

IN THE MEDIA

California’s COVID Misinformation Law Is Entangled in Lawsuits, Conflicting Rulings

Los Angels Times

May 12, 2023

Doctors Threatened for COVID-19 Views Gear Up for Possible SCOTUS Fight over California Misinformation Law

Fox News

May 12, 2023

Doctors Without Voices?

California Globe

May 12, 2023

Third Lawsuit Filed against California Law That Restricts Doctors’ COVID Advice to Patients

The Washington Times

February 7, 2023

California’s Perilous Bid to Censor Your Doctor’s Advice

New York Post

February 7, 2023

SEE 7 MEDIA MENTIONS

CASE HIGHLIGHTS

RELATED CASES
  • Adir International v. Starr Indemnity and Liability Company

    Due Process Violations

    The due process of law guarantees a right to be held to account only through the processes of an impartial court—something administrative tribunals violate every day.

    Case Closed -

    Agencies: California

    View Case
  • American Home Furnishings Alliance, et al. v. U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission

    Due Process Violations

    The due process of law guarantees a right to be held to account only through the processes of an impartial court—something administrative tribunals violate every day.

    Scope of Authority / Nondelegation

    The structure of the Constitution allows only Congress to legislate, only the Executive to enforce laws, and only the Judiciary to decide cases. But the Administrative State evades the Constitution’s avenues of governance when executive agencies issue regulations without statutory authorization from Congress.

    Case Closed - June 30, 2023

    Agencies: Consumer Product Safety Commission

    View Case
  • American Honda Motor Co., Inc. v. Walther, Dir., and Arkansas Department of Finance and Administration

    Judicial Deference

    Deference doctrines require judges to defer to an administrative agency’s fact finding, or its interpretation of statutes and regulations. Thus, judges surrender their independent judgment and, where the government is a party, must exhibit systematic bias in the government’s favor, which denies due process of law to the other litigant.

    Due Process Violations

    The due process of law guarantees a right to be held to account only through the processes of an impartial court—something administrative tribunals violate every day.

    Case Closed -

    Agencies: Arkansas Department of Finance and Administration

    View Case
  • American Hospital Association, et al. v. Xavier Becerra, et al.

    Judicial Deference

    Deference doctrines require judges to defer to an administrative agency’s fact finding, or its interpretation of statutes and regulations. Thus, judges surrender their independent judgment and, where the government is a party, must exhibit systematic bias in the government’s favor, which denies due process of law to the other litigant.

    Due Process Violations

    The due process of law guarantees a right to be held to account only through the processes of an impartial court—something administrative tribunals violate every day.

    Scope of Authority / Nondelegation

    The structure of the Constitution allows only Congress to legislate, only the Executive to enforce laws, and only the Judiciary to decide cases. But the Administrative State evades the Constitution’s avenues of governance when executive agencies issue regulations without statutory authorization from Congress.

    Case Closed - June 15, 2022

    Agencies: Department of Health and Human Services

    View Case
  • American Securities Association and Citadel Securities LLC v. United States Securities and Exchange Commission

    Due Process Violations

    The due process of law guarantees a right to be held to account only through the processes of an impartial court—something administrative tribunals violate every day.

    Scope of Authority / Nondelegation

    The structure of the Constitution allows only Congress to legislate, only the Executive to enforce laws, and only the Judiciary to decide cases. But the Administrative State evades the Constitution’s avenues of governance when executive agencies issue regulations without statutory authorization from Congress.

    Administrative Speech Controls

    The Administrative State tries to squelch speech, especially through licensing, speech bans, and speech mandates. Licensing requires one to get the government’s permission prior to speaking. Nothing was more clearly forbidden by the First Amendment than prior restraints on speech, but such controls are now commonplace.

    Unreasonable Searches

    The Fourth Amendment forbids warrantless searches and seizures of information, yet the Administrative State violates this right to privacy through administrative subpoenas and warrants, automated information collection devices, civil investigative demands, and “voluntary” requests for information.

    Conditions on Spending

    Administrative agencies use unconstitutional conditions on spending to regulate the conduct of grantees. Rather than rule through law, the government simply purchases submission.

    Case Active - February 15, 2024

    Agencies: Securities and Exchange Commission

    View Case
  • AMG Capital Management, LLC v. FTC and FTC v. Credit Bureau Center, LLC

    Due Process Violations

    The due process of law guarantees a right to be held to account only through the processes of an impartial court—something administrative tribunals violate every day.

    Scope of Authority / Nondelegation

    The structure of the Constitution allows only Congress to legislate, only the Executive to enforce laws, and only the Judiciary to decide cases. But the Administrative State evades the Constitution’s avenues of governance when executive agencies issue regulations without statutory authorization from Congress.

    Case Closed -

    Agencies: Federal Trade Commission

    View Case

SHARE THIS CASE

Enter your email address above to be notified whenever we post a new document to this case.