
The judge found that the ‘plaintiffs have established a likelihood of success on the grounds of their Fourteenth Amendment vagueness challenges’
Senior Judge William Shubb of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California Wednesday granted a preliminary injunction in Children’s Health Defense’s (CHD) motion, halting Gov. Gavin Newsom, Attorney General Rob Bonta, and California Medical and Osteopathic Boards’ enforcement of California’s COVID-19 misinformation law.
The judge found that the “plaintiffs have established a likelihood of success on the grounds of their Fourteenth Amendment vagueness challenges.”
Rick Jaffe and Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. are lead attorneys on the case representing plaintiffs, Physicians for Informed Consent, LeTrinh Hoang, D.O. and CHD-California Chapter members.
Judge Shubb’s order routinely cites Dr. Sanjay Verma’s declaration that “explains in detail how the so-called ‘consensus’ has developed and shifted, often within mere months, throughout the COVID-19 pandemic.”
Judge Shubb’s memorandum and order states, “drawing a line between what is true and what is settled by scientific consensus is difficult, if not impossible.” The judge explains, “because COVID-19 is such a new and evolving area of scientific study, it may be hard to determine which scientific conclusions are ‘false’ at a given point in time.”
“The judge’s ruling confirms an important right to share and receive truthful information involving important medical decisions,” said CHD’s Chairman and Chief Litigation Counsel Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. “Promoting health, particularly children’s health, must come before all other interests.”
Mary Holland, president and general counsel of CHD, applauded the decision. She said, “This is not only a victory for California doctors, but for professionals and citizens around the world in this battle for freedom. The right to share and receive truthful information, no matter how uncomfortable it may be for those currently in power, must remain inviolate.”
The order’s criticism of the new law is most remarkable:
“Because the term ‘scientific consensus’ is so ill-defined, physician plaintiffs are unable to determine if their intended conduct contradicts the scientific consensus, and accordingly ‘what is prohibited by the law.’
“…the inclusion of the term ‘standard of care’ only serves to further confuse the reader. Under the language of AB 2098 [sic], to qualify as ‘misinformation,’ the information must be ‘contradicted by contemporary scientific consensus contrary to the standard of care.’ Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 2270. Put simply, this provision is grammatically incoherent. While ‘statutes need not be written with ‘mathematical’ precision, they must be intelligible.’
“Vague statutes are particularly objectionable when they ‘involve sensitive areas of First Amendment freedoms’ because ‘they operate to inhibit the exercise of those freedoms.’”
Judge Shubb rhetorically questioned,
“…who determines whether a consensus exists to begin with? If a consensus does exist, among whom must the consensus exist (for example, practicing physicians, or professional organizations, or medical researchers, or public health officials, or perhaps a combination)? In which geographic area must the consensus exist (California, or the United States, or the world)? What level of agreement constitutes a consensus (perhaps a plurality, or a majority, or a supermajority)? How recently in time must the consensus have been established to be considered ‘contemporary’? And what source or sources should physicians consult to determine what the consensus is at any given time (perhaps peer-reviewed scientific articles, or clinical guidelines from professional organizations, or public health recommendations)? The statute provides no means of understanding to what ‘scientific consensus’ refers.”
Lead attorney Jaffe and CHD legal team members Greg Glaser and Ray Flores are discussing the proposed discovery plan and the anticipated motion for summary (or partial) judgment. Jaffe remarked, “Conducting video depositions will be amazing.”
About Children’s Health Defense:
Children’s Health Defense is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization. Its mission is to end childhood health epidemics by working aggressively to eliminate harmful exposures, hold those responsible accountable and establish safeguards to prevent future harm. For more information or to donate to CHD, visit ChildrensHealthDefense.org.
Also read:
- Washington Gov. Jay Inslee tests positive for COVID-19 for the third timeWashington Governor Jay Inslee tests positive for COVID-19 for the third time, the first in May 2022 and again this February.
- Fauci secretly visited CIA to ‘influence’ findings on COVID originsThe CIA brought in Dr. Anthony Fauci to its headquarters “without a record of entry” to help “influence” the agency’s review of the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic, according to a letter from the chairman of the Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic.
- Cancers erupting in ways ‘never before seen’ following COVID shotsAnother possible side effect of those COVID-19 shots demanded for Americans by many governments and employers during the pandemic has shown up, and it’s not good.
- Doctor censored by Biden administration calls out scheme of threats and ‘coercion’Francis Collins demanded a ‘swift and devastating takedown’ when experts in the field of medicine suggested that the Biden administration’s lockdowns, shutdowns, social distancing and masking demands weren’t really needed to deal with COVID-19.
- COVID skeptic Dr. David Martin: WHO is a ‘criminal cartel’In a recent video, COVID-19 skeptic Dr. David Martin states his opinions about the pandemic.
- CCRP adopts resolution affirming its support of individual informed consentThe Clark County Republican Party (CCRP) has adopted a resolution meant to tell politicians that they are serious when it comes to informed medical consent.
- WA DOH replaces COVID-19 data dashboard with respiratory illness data dashboardThe Washington State Department of Health on Monday announced the retirement of its COVID-19 dashboard, with a replacement that shows data about multiple respiratory illnesses.
- State’s surgeon general issues COVID booster warningFlorida’s surgeon general, Dr. Joseph Ladapo, advised that anyone under 65 years of age should not get COVID-19 booster vaccines.
The judge broke it down brilliantly.