Listen to the article
The Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear former NBA star John Stockton’s lawsuit challenging Washington state’s regulations on COVID-19 misinformation, effectively ending a legal battle that had become emblematic of broader tensions between free speech and public health policy during the pandemic.
Stockton, a Basketball Hall of Famer and Gonzaga University legend, had joined forces with an organization founded by presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. in March 2024 to file the lawsuit, known as Stockton v. Brown. The case sought to prevent the Washington Medical Commission from enforcing unprofessional conduct regulations against two physicians accused of spreading misinformation about COVID-19.
“Ultimately, the job was to force the Washington medical commission to withdraw the charges against him. And I guess, you know, we’ll just have to take that as a W,” said Richard Jaffe, Stockton’s attorney, expressing disappointment with the Supreme Court’s decision while noting that his client had already achieved a significant objective.
The case centered on a fundamental constitutional question: to what extent is a doctor’s speech protected under the First Amendment? This question gained particular relevance during the pandemic when medical authorities sought to combat what they considered dangerous misinformation while critics argued such efforts amounted to censorship.
Stockton had been a vocal critic of Washington state’s pandemic response measures. His opposition to COVID-19 restrictions gained public attention when Gonzaga University barred him from attending basketball games at the Kennel, the university’s home court, due to his refusal to comply with mask requirements at the height of the pandemic.
The legal journey for Stockton was complicated. In May 2024, a federal judge dismissed his lawsuit against the state. However, the following year brought a partial victory when the state supreme court ruled that the medical commission’s policy on COVID-19 misinformation violated the First Amendment, prompting the state to withdraw charges against the doctors involved in the case.
Jaffe highlighted an important legal distinction that emerged during the proceedings: “He got the 9th Circuit to agree that when the speech is treatment, it’s unprotected.” This differentiation between medical advice as protected speech versus medical treatment as regulated professional conduct has significant implications for future cases involving medical professionals.
The attorney expressed surprise at the Supreme Court’s decision not to hear the case, particularly in light of recent precedents he believed were applicable. “Justice Neil Gorsuch talked about it’s the sword of Damocles hanging over people that causes the injury, that’s all you have to show, but they didn’t do that,” Jaffe said. “So why? I don’t know. Maybe it’s because it’s COVID information. Maybe it was too hot to handle.”
The Washington State Attorney General’s office, however, viewed the outcome differently. In a statement to KREM 2, the office remarked: “It’s not surprising the Supreme Court saw no need to review these obviously correct judgments.”
The case reflects the continuing legal and social tensions that emerged during the pandemic. Public health officials and medical boards across the country implemented various measures to combat what they identified as dangerous misinformation that could undermine public health efforts, while critics argued such policies infringed upon constitutional rights to free speech.
For Stockton, one of the NBA’s greatest point guards who spent his entire 19-year career with the Utah Jazz, this foray into pandemic politics and constitutional law represents a different kind of public engagement than his athletic achievements. While the Supreme Court’s decision not to hear his case marks an end to this particular legal challenge, the broader questions about the balance between free speech and public health regulations remain contentious in American society.
The case also underscores how figures from outside the political and legal spheres became influential voices in pandemic-related controversies, with celebrities and athletes like Stockton leveraging their platforms to challenge official policies and medical consensus during a time of unprecedented public health emergency.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
6 Comments
I can understand the challenges in regulating medical misinformation, especially for high-profile figures. It’s a delicate line to walk between protecting free speech and safeguarding public health. This case highlights the complexities involved.
The Supreme Court’s decision not to hear this case is noteworthy. It suggests the justices may have felt the lower court rulings were sound, even if the issue remains contentious. I’m interested to see if this impacts the broader debate around COVID-19 misinformation from medical professionals.
This is an interesting case that touches on the balance between free speech and public health policy. While misinformation can be harmful, doctors’ ability to discuss medical issues freely is also important. I’m curious to see how this issue continues to evolve.
This case underscores the ongoing tension between personal liberties and public wellbeing. While doctors should have latitude to discuss medical issues, the spread of dangerous misinformation is a serious concern. It’s a complex balance that will likely continue to be debated.
This case highlights the challenges in regulating speech, even for medical professionals. While public health is paramount, preserving the ability of doctors to discuss issues freely is also important. It’s a delicate balance that will require ongoing scrutiny.
The Supreme Court’s decision not to hear this case is intriguing. It suggests they may have felt the lower courts had properly weighed the competing interests at stake. Even so, this issue will likely continue to be a point of contention going forward.