Reported / Citable
Background
A group of physicians and Physicians and Patients Reclaiming Medicine sued the Federation of State Medical Boards, several state medical boards, and current or former officials. They alleged that the FSMB’s statements and recommended policies concerning COVID-19 misinformation prompted state boards to discipline physicians who expressed views that departed from prevailing medical consensus.
The challenged disciplinary actions included license suspensions, restrictions, probation, and reprimands arising from vaccination exemptions, communications about COVID-19 vaccines, ivermectin treatment, and other conduct. Plaintiffs asserted claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for viewpoint discrimination and for an alleged conspiracy between the FSMB defendants and the state-board defendants to violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted all eight motions to dismiss. It dismissed without prejudice the claims against the Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New York, Indiana, Washington, and California defendants because plaintiffs failed to establish that each nonresident defendant had sufficient contacts with Texas. Membership in the FSMB and conclusory allegations of a conspiracy centered at the organization’s Texas headquarters did not establish personal jurisdiction.
The court also dismissed without prejudice the claims against the Texas Medical Board and Sherif Zaafran in his official capacity based on sovereign immunity. Because Dr. Bowden alleged only a completed public reprimand rather than an ongoing federal-law violation, the Ex parte Young exception did not apply. The court dismissed with prejudice the individual-capacity claims against Zaafran on qualified-immunity grounds, concluding that the pleaded facts showed discipline for conduct rather than viewpoint. Finally, it dismissed with prejudice the claims against the FSMB, Katie Templeton, and Kenneth Simons because plaintiffs did not plead specific facts showing an agreement with state actors to violate constitutional rights.
Key Takeaways
- An alleged nationwide conspiracy does not establish personal jurisdiction without facts showing that each defendant purposefully directed relevant conduct toward the forum state.
- Ex parte Young did not overcome sovereign immunity because the complaint alleged a completed reprimand, not an ongoing violation requiring prospective relief.
- Adoption of FSMB-recommended policies and conclusory assertions of coordination did not plausibly plead a Section 1983 conspiracy.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the jurisdictional and pleading barriers facing constitutional challenges that combine disciplinary actions by multiple state regulators in a single federal forum. Plaintiffs must establish forum contacts separately for each defendant and allege concrete facts identifying the circumstances of any purported agreement.
It also distinguishes discipline based on professional conduct from punishment based on a physician’s viewpoint. Here, the court concluded that the allegations concerning the Texas proceeding described discipline for dispatching a nurse to a hospital where the physician lacked privileges, rather than for protected speech.