President's weekly report — July 31, 2015
Free speech in Texas
We filed this amicus brief asking the Supreme Court to take up Hines v. Alldredge (Texas Board of Veterinary Examiners). Texas law forbids vets from offering advice without first physically examining the animal. And even though this rule forbids Dr. Hines from communicating information to people, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the law is not even subject to the stringent constitutional standards that apply to restrictions on freedom of speech. Instead, Dr. Hines’s communication is only an “activity,” not speech, and the First Amendment is therefore irrelevant. That’s because of the doctrine of “professional speech” purports to limit the right of speech by professionals In this case, Dr. Hines is not even able to tell a pet owner whose dog has fleas what to do without first touching the dog. But anyone other than a licensed vet is allowed to say, “go to the pet store and buy flea shampoo” or “there’s a monkey app for that.” Our brief explains that the courts should not countenance such prior restraint when it will stifle innovation in the provision of health care. For more see our full blog post here.
Waters of the United States
For an update on the latest case developments on the various challenges to the Waters of the United States rule — EPA’s wetlands extravaganza — see our blog here.
What to read next
PLF asks the U.S. Supreme Court to rule that there is no “legislative exception” to the unconstitutional conditions doctrine
It seems that some governments and courts prefer to treat Supreme Court precedent as an option, rather than a requirement. The Supreme Court has ruled—twice—that it’s unconstitutional for government to … ›