WASHINGTON, DC, Jan. 25, 2023 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Chief Justice William B. Shubb of the US District Court for the Eastern District of California rendered a ruling today granted NCLA request for injunctive relief in Hoeg, et al. v. Newsom, et al. He found that the plaintiffs were entitled to bring a legal challenge and ordered its implementation Assembly Act (AB) 2098 in California. The controversial state law authorized the Medical Board of California to discipline physicians who “disseminate” information about Covid-19 that deviates from “contemporary scientific consensus.” Judge Shubb stated that “the ‘contemporary scientific consensus’ has no established meaning within the medical community,” and because the “scientific consensus” is so ill-defined and vague, the medical plaintiffs in the lawsuit “are unable to establish whether their intended behavior contradicts the scientific consensus and, accordingly, ‘what is prohibited by law.'”

The New Civil Liberties Alliance, a nonpartisan, nonprofit civil rights group, represents five Medical Board of California-licensed physicians. dr Høeg, Duriseti, Kheriaty, Mazolewski and Khatibi alleged violations of their First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and expression and their Fourteenth Amendment right to due process. At the hearing on Monday, January 23, the NCLA argued that the term “contemporary scientific consensus” is not defined in law and is logically undefinable. No one can, at any given time, know the “consensus” of doctors and scientists on various issues related to the prevention and treatment of Covid-19. Judge Shubb concurred with that analysis, stating, “COVID-19 is such a new and evolving area of ​​scientific study that it can be difficult to determine which scientific conclusions are ‘wrong’ at any given time.” Because he favored the fourteenth Amendment arguments of the plaintiffs decided, he did not get to the first amendment arguments.

The plaintiffs asserted that they could not …