Case Update: Response to Motion to Dismiss
Wilkinson v. Rodgers
Hello SMF family!
On June 6th, 2023 our team filed a response to the motion to Dismiss in our lawsuit representing Dr. Wilkinson, Dr. Cole, and Dr. Eggleston against the Washington State Medical Commission.
Case Brief: Wilkinson v. Rodgers is a lawsuit brought on behalf of three doctors licensed in Washington State, Dr. Rick Wilkinson (Yakima), Dr. Richard Eggleston (Clarkston), and Dr. Ryan Cole (Boise, ID) who are being prosecuted by the Washington Medical Commission (WMC) for COVID-19 misinformation/disinformation and for prescribing Ivermectin under the WMC’s COVID-19 Position Statement.
SMF has challenged the WMC’s punitive actions to STOP these actions, requesting a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO). In the TRO request, we asked Judge Tom Rice of the Eastern District of Washington (federal court), which he denied. Judge Rice’s decision to deny the TRO was based on his belief that the WMC’s Position Statement is not enforceable as it says that it “may” be enforced.
Obviously, we disagree with that position. Judge Rice also stated that he could not decide on the merits of the case as each Dr.’s license is currently in the middle of an investigation from the WMC, so the federal court is required to abstain from deciding the merits UNTIL the WMC’s process is completed.
Case Update from Karen Osborne:
The WMC is errantly claiming that these cases should be dismissed on the premise of abstention doctrine, namely citing a case Younger v. Harris.
The “abstention doctrine” (think: abstain) prohibits a federal court from deciding a case within its jurisdiction so that a state court can resolve some or all of the dispute. “The Younger abstention doctrine is an effort by the Federal Courts to allow states to decide their own issues in their own courts. This, of course, is something of which State Attorney General’s want to take full advantage of.”
“In this case, the State is claiming that, because it is a medical issue—something the states have primary and broad power over (called police power) -- the issue must first be heard by the Washington Medical Commission and go through the state processes and therefore belongs in State court. However, this means that the State has the power to limit speech rights while the cases are being pursued. The Supreme Court has recognized that limiting First Amendment Rights even for a short amount of time is an irreparable harm. Therefore, we argue that the Younger abstention doctrine does not apply because the Federal Courts have an interest in preventing States from using their police powers to violate First Amendment Rights.”
-Karen Osborne
The state will have a chance to respond in two weeks, and the judge is set to render a ruling on July 7th, 2023. Whether we see that verdict on the 7th remains to be seen as we are still waiting for a resolution to our Brumback case. We will keep you all updated on the progress of this lawsuit.
Silent Majority Foundation (SMF) is a 501(c)(3) organization centered on protecting America's constitution and theological foundation. With that mission in mind, we support, protect and defend the constitution of our United States through education, advocacy, and litigation effort. As a non-profit all of our services are available only through the generous donations of our supporters. Without each of our supporters we would not be able to do what we do. Please consider supporting us as a monthly donor.