Supreme Court lets stand Texas law limiting online advice from veterinarians about sick pets

Reporting from Washington —  Veterinarians do not have a free-speech right to give online advice to pet owners about how to care for a sick animal, according to a decision that the Supreme Court let stand on Monday.

The justices turned down a 1st Amendment challenge to a Texas law that requires vets to examine an animal before offering advice or suggesting treatment.

The libertarian Institute for Justice contended such “occupational speech” restrictions often serve to prop up established professions and harm consumers who could benefit from advice at a low cost.

But repeatedly, the high court has deferred to state regulators who have used their licensing authority to enforce limits on professionals, including not just doctors and psychologists, but also tour guides and interior designers.

Dr. Ronald Hines, a semi-retired veterinarian in Texas, sued to challenge the state law after he was fined for offering advice online. He had founded a website after his retirement and posted articles about caring for pets. But when pet owners contacted him and asked for help with a sick animal, he began answering questions and offering advice. He charged a flat fee of $58 to those who could afford to pay.

He did not prescribe medication and sometimes recommended the owners take their pet for a physical examination. But in 2012, the Texas Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners accused him of violating state law by offering advice without having personally examined the animal. The law specifically prohibited vets from interacting with animal owners “solely by telephone or electronic means.”

He was fined $500; he then sued, alleging the law violated his rights under the 1st Amendment. He won before a district judge, but lost before the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals.

In a 3-0 decision, the judges said states have broad power to regulate professionals and that the Texas law imposes a particular standard of care -- one that requires examining an animal in person. “It does not regulate the content of any speech or require veterinarians to deliver any particular message,” they said.

Similar disputes have arisen in a variety of situations. Two years ago, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected a 1st Amendment challenge to a California law that prohibited “conversion therapy” designed to change the sexual orientation of minors. The judges said this was a restriction on a medical treatment, not on advice or speech.

Meanwhile, judges on the 11th Circuit Court in Atlanta have issued conflicting opinions on a Florida law that prohibits doctors from asking patients about whether they keep firearms at home.

In the Hines case, the Institute for Justice, an Arlington, Va.-based public interest law firm, appealed on the veterinarian’s behalf and urged the Supreme Court to decide how far states may go to regulate the speech of professionals. “There is nothing here but pure speech” contained in “private, personal emails,” lawyers argued.

But the justices issued a one-line order Monday saying they would not hear the case of Hines vs. Alldredge.

On Twitter: @DavidGSavage

ALSO

Abortion violence’s deadly toll spans clinics, kitchen and church

Despite runaway blimp, lawmakers stand behind troubled missile defense system

Penalty against lobbying firm sends message to an industry unfamiliar with prosecution