Physicians for Informed Consent Files Certiorari Petition With the Supreme Court to End Censorship by the California Medical Board
PIC advocates for strong First Amendment protection of doctor-patient speech without fear of prosecution by medical boards
NEWPORT BEACH, Calif., March 5, 2025 (Newswire.com) - Physicians for Informed Consent (PIC) and Children's Health Defense, along with co-plaintiffs Drs. Pierre Kory, Le Trinh Hoang, and Brian Tyson, have filed a petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court-a formal request to hear their potentially landmark case, Kory v. Bonta. The case seeks to resolve an intensifying conflict among federal circuits regarding whether the First Amendment protects physician communications to patients that diverge from fixed narratives about COVID-19 and other public health matters-a question that is particularly significant in a field like medicine, where scientific understanding is continually advancing and rarely settled.
The certiorari petition challenges the Ninth Circuit's opinion that no communication by a doctor to a patient is protected by the First Amendment. PIC argues that the Ninth Circuit's position is inconsistent with the Eleventh Circuit, prior Supreme Court authority, and even its own prior precedent.
Notably, Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito appear ready to provide a solution, as they previously dissented from the denial of certiorari in Tingley v. Ferguson, the case that originally created the conflict in the circuits. If two other Supreme Court Justices join them, the case will be heard by the Court.
Richard Jaffe, Esq., petitioners' counsel, emphasized, "This case touches on the foundational rights of professionals to share knowledge and opinions essential for patient autonomy and informed consent."
Greg Glaser, PIC general counsel, noted, "Free speech is necessary for all other constitutional rights. This case is a good opportunity for the nation's highest court to protect doctors from medical boards acting outside the bounds of their authority."
Dr. Sanjay Verma, a cardiologist, provided the pivotal declaration in the case, showing the many instances in which public health authorities' pronouncements were incorrect and harmed the public. Dr. Verma advised the courts, "The fact [that] most of my patients with cardiac complications after COVID-19 vaccination had not previously been educated on these risks underscores the material and sometimes fatal consequence of silencing physicians who engage in an ethically transparent and comprehensive risk-benefit discussion."
Source: Physicians for Informed Consent
