ARLINGTON, Va. – Yesterday, the United States Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit ruled that restricting the online pet advice of Brownsville, Texas, veterinarian Dr. Ron Hines implicated his First Amendment rights. This ruling is a win for all free speech advocates and sets a strong precedent that occupational speech is protected by the First Amendment and specifically for other professionals who want to meet virtually with clients. This win in an over ten-year battle between Dr. Hines, who is represented by the Institute for Justice (IJ), and the state has set up one last possible battleground: the U.S. Supreme Court. As of this writing, there has been no indication on whether Texas will seek a petition for certiorari.
Writing in the decision, Circuit Judge Don R. Willett noted, “No one ever complained about Dr. Hines’s online pet-care advice or alleged that it harmed a single animal.” He also noted the contradictory nature that “Texas law allows telemedicine without first requiring a face-to-face examination to establish a physician-patient relationship.” Willet concluded that “exam-free telehealth, turns out, is fine for your Uncle Bernard, but not for your Saint Bernard.”
“This decision is critical for the information age, making clear that the First Amendment protects the advice of licensed professionals and those who want their advice,” said IJ Senior Attorney Jeff Rowes. “In ruling in favor of free speech, this decision has deepened disagreement among the federal courts over how the First Amendment protects occupational speech—a disagreement that only the Supreme Court can resolve.”
Between 2002 and 2012 Dr. Hines gave online advice to pet owners all across the world from until the Texas State Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners said his advice was illegal—not because it harmed an animal or was inaccurate, but because Texas prohibits veterinarians from sharing their expertise with pet owners without first examining their pets in person. Dr. Hines teamed up with the IJ in 2013 to challenge that restriction but the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in 2015 that his advice was regulated by occupational licensure and hence not protected by the First Amendment. After a landmark 2018 Supreme Court decision (NIFLA v. Becerra) rejected the so-called “professional speech doctrine,” which excluded occupational speech from the First Amendment, Dr. Hines again partnered with IJ in 2018 to vindicate his right to free speech. Yesterday’s ruling enshrines constitutional protection to Americans who want to give advice online without being punished for it.
“Dr. Hines’ win is a victory for all Americans who want to seek or give advice online,” said IJ Attorney Andrew Ward, who also represents Dr. Hines. “Dr. Hines may be an elderly veterinarian, but this victory will help secure freedom of speech for the next generation of Americans for whom using the internet to speak with experts will be normal.”
After a disability made physical practice too difficult, Dr. Hines spent a decade of his retirement giving online advice to pet owners around the world. For most pet owners he advised, traditional veterinary clinics were not a realistic option. Dr. Hines charged little to nothing, and there was no evidence that animals were anything other than benefitted. Nonetheless, the Texas veterinary board suspended Dr. Hines’ license, fined him and forced him to stop giving life-saving advice. The 5th Circuit then ruled against him in his initial lawsuit. Since then, however, major developments in First Amendment law prompted Dr. Hines to renew his lawsuit.
“I fought this long battle for the next generation of veterinarians, pet owners, and animals, especially those around the world who don’t have access to an American vet,” said Dr. Hines. “I hope my First Amendment victory causes states across the county to respect the free speech rights of their veterinarians.”
IJ has a long history of successfully advocating for the Fist Amendment. Previously, IJ protected a Mississippi startup’s First Amendment right to create informal maps in the face of a regulatory board’s failed bid to shut the company down for supposedly practicing “land surveying” without a license. In California, IJ successfully defended a horseshoeing teacher’s right to talk about horseshoeing to willing students and the right of two end-of-life doulas to talk about home funerals with willing clients. IJ has also secured court victories all over the country—from the District of Columbia to Charleston to Savannah—for tour guides who want to tell stories without needing the government’s permission.
# # #
To arrange interviews on this subject, journalists may contact Phillip Suderman, IJ’s Communications Project Manager at [email protected] (850) 376-4110. More information on the case is available at: https://ij.org/case/texas-veterinary-speech-ii/