Washington State Seeking To Legalize Homeless Encampments
Washington Democrats have introduced House Bill 1380, sponsored by Rep. Mia Gregerson (D-SeaTac), which would prevent cities and towns from banning or heavily restricting homeless encampments on public property, according to 770 KTTH.
The bill requires any regulations to be “objectively reasonable as to time, place, and manner,” a vague standard determined by judges. It also applies retroactively, potentially nullifying existing ordinances, and provides legal advantages to homeless individuals challenging encampment restrictions.
The bill allows homeless individuals to sue cities over encampment restrictions, request injunctive or declaratory relief, and argue that the restrictions are unreasonable. If the city loses, taxpayers would be responsible for covering the plaintiffs’ legal fees.
Opponents claim the bill’s ambiguous language deters cities from enforcing restrictions, as its unclear standards may result in inconsistent court decisions.
State Rep. Mia Gregerson, who advocates for the right to camp on public property, has proposed legislation that could create legal confusion, with different judges potentially issuing conflicting rulings on the same ordinance.
The bill offers no clear definition of “objectively reasonable,” leaving the term open to subjective interpretation when applied to encampment restrictions. Courts are directed to prioritize the impact on homeless individuals, even permitting violations of “unreasonable” ordinances if it is necessary for survival, such as staying warm and dry.
The potential benefits of these ordinances for the broader community are not considered.
Critics argue this framework makes it nearly impossible for cities to defend their policies, likely by design. A local lawmaker told “The Jason Rantz Show” that Rep. Gregerson did not consult cities in her district before moving forward with the legislation.
The 770 KTTH report says that most cities can’t afford the lawsuits triggered by challenges to their homeless ordinances under the vague “objective reasonableness” standard, which invites endless legal disputes.
Critics argue HB 1360, proposed by Rep. Mia Gregerson, is a rebranded version of her controversial “homeless bill of rights” and worsens the crisis by limiting local leaders’ ability to address encampments, prioritizing ideology over solutions.
A U.S. judge on Jan. 23 blocked President Donald Trump’s order limiting birthright citizenship.
U.S. District Judge John Coughenour after a hearing in Seattle issued a temporary restraining order that prohibits the Trump administration for 14 days from enforcing Trump’s order, which the president signed hours after taking office on Monday.
The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
“This is blatantly unconstitutional order,” Coughenour told a lawyer with the U.S. Justice Department during the hearing.
The ruling was made in a case brought by the attorneys general of Arizona, Illinois, Oregon, and Washington state. It was one of several lawsuits lodged against the executive order.
Trump’s order was set to take effect on Feb. 19. It says that the federal government does not automatically recognize birthright citizenship for children who are born to illegal immigrants in the United States.
Historically, babies born on U.S. soil receive U.S. citizenship.
That’s based on court rulings interpreting the U.S. Constitution, which says in part that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” Congress also passed a law containing similar language.
Trump’s order says that the Constitution’s citizenship clause “has never been interpreted to extend citizenship universally to everyone born within the United States” and “has always excluded from birthright citizenship persons who were born in the United States but not ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof.’”
It clarifies that the federal government does not automatically grant citizenship to babies whose mothers are in the United States and whose fathers are neither U.S. citizens nor lawful permanent residents.
In their motion for a temporary restraining order, state officials said that Trump went beyond his powers with the order, describing it as “flatly contrary to the Fourteenth Amendment’s text and history, century-old Supreme Court precedent, longstanding Executive Branch interpretation, and the Immigration and Nationality Act.”
Without court intervention, the order would leave more than 150,000 babies born this year without citizenship because their parents are illegally in the country, according to the attorneys general.
Government officials said in response that the court should not issue a restraining order because the states have not suffered any injuries and because the plaintiffs are not likely to succeed.
“Ample historical evidence shows that the children of non-resident aliens are subject to foreign powers—and, thus, are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and are not constitutionally entitled to birthright citizenship,” government lawyers said.
That included a Supreme Court justice writing in legal commentaries that birthright citizenship should not apply to babies whose parents were in the country “for temporary purposes.”
Coughenour sided with the states, telling the courtroom before Department of Justice attorney Brett Shumate had even finished talking that he had signed the restraining order sought by the states.
The two-week order is in place while Coughenour weighs issuing a preliminary injunction, which would likely remain in place as the case proceeds in the courts.
Schumate during Thursday’s hearing argued the executive order was constitutional and that any order blocking it would be “wildly inappropriate.”
Kremlin Shrugs Off, Downplays Trump’s Threat Of Tariffs: ‘Nothing Particularly New Here’
As we’ve reported, President Donald Trump has been warning and urging for Russia to negotiate an end to the war in Ukraine or else things will get worse for Moscow, also as Trump has threatened Russia with new tariffs and sanctions if no solution is found.
But the Kremlin in response appears to have simply shrugged off this threat of sanctions and tariffs, saying in a statement that “we do not see any particularly new elements here” and that “we remain ready for equal and mutually respectful dialogue.”
Trump’s strong statements are intended to build some quick leverage for Ukraine at the negotiating table – leverage which it clearly doesn’t have on the battlefield as Russian forces continue to make strategic advances around the key city of Pokrovsk.
But Putin isn’t ready to take the bait, it appears, and Trump’s White House and national security team no doubt perceives it will be much tougher dealing with Putin than previously thought.
Once again, the battlefield is not in Washington or Kiev’s favor: “The Chief Commander of the Armed Forces, Oleksandr Syrskyi, stated that the army is doing everything within its power to prevent the loss of Pokrovsk. At this moment, there is no talk of encircling the city—the Russians have approached it from only one direction,” a Thursday war report reads.
“According to the Institute for the Study of War, the Russians remain relentless in their attempts to initiate a large offensive and are moving units from other directions to the Pokrovsk region,” the report adds.
There won’t a ‘quick fix’ to getting either side to the negotiating table, and given Moscow is completely in the driver’s seat with recent battlefield gains in Donetsk, the Kremlin is unlikely to feel in a hurry.
Somewhat surprisingly, Ukraine’s Zelensky has started to change his tune on the possibility of every directly engaging Putin in diplomatic talks. He has long said Kiev will never negotiate with Russia so long as Putin is in power, but now…
However, in an interview with Bloomberg on Wednesday in Davos, Zelensky appeared to have changed his stance on the issue. According to the agency, the Ukrainian leader now says he wants to secure a commitment from Trump to support and secure Ukraine before engaging with Putin.
“The only question is what security guarantees and honestly I want to have understanding before the talks. If he can guarantee this strong and irreversible security for Ukraine, we will move along this diplomatic path,” he said.
Such statements also serve to give the Kremlin side more confidence and assurance that it has a stronger hand, given Zelensky is already inching away from past absolutist statements. However, there are reports this week saying that Putin is increasingly concerned about the state of the Russian economy:
President Vladimir Putin has grown increasingly concerned about distortions in Russia’s wartime economy, just as Donald Trump pushes for an end to the Ukraine conflict, five sources with knowledge of the situation told Reuters.
Russia’s economy, driven by exports of oil, gas and minerals, grew robustly over the past two years despite multiple rounds of Western sanctions imposed after its invasion of Ukraine in 2022.
The report then emphasizes, “But domestic activity has become strained in recent months by labor shortages and high interest rates introduced to tackle inflation, which has accelerated under record military spending.”
Zelensky also has little leverage to impose his demands on the White House at this point, and with the more compliant Biden team long gone…
President Volodymyr Zelenskiy said any effective peacekeeping force deployed in Ukraine will need to include US troops, as he appealed to Donald Trump ahead of talks with Russia https://t.co/xRaJcCErV8pic.twitter.com/zl7mfVoQ8L
Earlier this week, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov told an audience at the Institute for US and Canadian Studies in Moscow, “Compared to the hopelessness in every aspect of the previous White House chief (President Joe Biden), there is a window of opportunity today, albeit a small one.”
He added: “It’s therefore important to understand with what and whom we will have to deal, how best to build relations with Washington, how best to maximize opportunities and minimize risks.” But Moscow will extract as much as possible from the other side… because it can.
Stargate Stunner: Sam Altman Is A Wraith In Sheep’s Clothing
This week, SoftBank CEO Masayoshi Son predicted that “artificial superintelligence” will kick off American’s “golden age,” as he announced a $500 billion team-up with Oracle’s Larry Ellison, MGX, and OpenAI’s Sam Altman.
The new collaboration, dubbed “Stargate,” would massively scale up AI data centers over the next four years, and speed the development of godlike AI systems that Ellison promised could do things like develop cancer vaccines.
Personalized medicine “where we never run into a problem like Covid-19,” says Larry Ellison. We are still doing Covid? I guess so.
And he wants everyone to take a “vaccine.”
If you don’t see evil in this video, you are blind.
The collaboration drew harsh and immediate rebuke from Elon Musk, a close Trump advisor who was notably not at the Wednesday press conference, and suggested on X “They don’t actually have the money.”
He directed particular vitriol at Altman, whose OpenAI he co-founded and is currently suing; he reposted an image of a crack pipe with the joking allegation that Altman and his associates were smoking it. After hours of this, Altman finally slapped back, saying “i realize what is great for the country isn’t always what’s optimal for your companies, but in your new role i hope you’ll mostly put 🇺🇸 first.” –Politico
And while Altman slapped back against his OpenAI co-founder Musk, both project Stargate, and Altman cozying up to the Trump administration 2.0 has come under attack.
The Inventor of the mRNA Technology, Dr. Robert Malone, Reacts to “Project StarGate” — “I am Blown away…”
“The logic of Mr. Ellison is grossly naive. It’s a concept well over 30 years old and it’s been repeatedly discredited….>
Altman, Reid Hoffman’s pool boy, has come under fire from journalist and author Mike Cernovich, who’s been pointing out that the OpenAI CEO has been a far left activist for a while.
There’s also this angle. Bill Gates was on the pedophile island with Reid Hoffman. Jeffrey Epstein made a very small trade before Microsoft bought LinkedIn. Not enough to move needle. But enough to say, “I was watching you the entire time.”https://t.co/8nFIgyWq2A
A COVID-19 vaccine is no longer a requirement for individuals seeking permanent residence in the United States, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) said in a Jan. 22 notice.
USCIS, which oversees legal immigration, imposed the COVID-19 vaccination requirement in October 2021 on people looking to move to the United States. Applicants were required to submit proof of COVID-19 vaccination before completing medical examinations.
“USCIS will not issue any Request for Evidence or Notice of Intent to Deny related to proving a COVID-19 vaccination,” the agency stated.
“USCIS will not deny any adjustment of status application based on the applicant’s failure to present documentation that they received the COVID-19 vaccination.”
USCIS did not respond to a request for more information, including whether the change applies retroactively.
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, whose guidance the USCIS cited when announcing the COVID-19 vaccine mandate, did not return an inquiry.
U.S. immigration officials typically accept proof of prior infection instead of vaccination but did not offer that option for COVID-19.
They did offer exceptions for people whose doctor decided a COVID-19 vaccine was not medically appropriate, or whose religious beliefs did not permit a vaccination.
Some applicants successfully sought exceptions, Christina Xenides, a lawyer with Siri & Glimstad LLP, told The Epoch Times in an email.
Xenides said that the requirement has negatively impacted numerous immigrants while it has been in place.
“Families have endured prolonged separation due to this specific vaccine requirement, and others have had to give up their American dream due to either not wanting to receive the vaccine themselves or give it to their children as young as 6 months, as was required per CDC guidelines,” she said.
“The requirement for all residency applicants aged six months and older to receive this vaccine was particularly troubling for many reasons, especially given the clear evidence that the available vaccines do not prevent the transmission of COVID-19. Additionally, USCIS’s refusal to recognize natural immunity as a valid medical waiver and the limited scope of accepted medical contraindications effectively rendered these options inaccessible for many individuals with serious health conditions.”
Other USCIS vaccination requirements, including for the mumps, measles, and rubella vaccine, are still in place.
Xenides said that people can seek waivers for the remaining vaccination requirements.
If they’re solely opposed to COVID-19 vaccination, she said, the revocation of the COVID-19 vaccine mandate “marks a significant and positive development.”
Calls for Canada to respond aggressively to U.S. trade threats ignore the economic realities of such a move. Consider Quebec and Alberta energy. The stakes for Alberta and Quebec in this morbidly anticipated trade-war gamble are profoundly asymmetric, with Alberta standing to lose far more in absolute terms and per capita. The arguments to engage in such conflict are reckless and fail to recognize the magnitude of our economic integration with the United States.
Canada and the United States share one of the world’s most extensive and intertwined trading relationships. In 2022, bilateral trade in goods and services exceeded $900 billion annually. Canada exported 75 percent of its goods to the United States. Beyond trade, bilateral investment is immense, with over $1 trillion in two-way direct investment (All amounts in Canadian dollars).
A trade war would jeopardize trade and these capital flows, which are critical for businesses and public finances. Retaliatory tariffs or export restrictions would destabilize relationships and harm key industries across Canada. During the 2018 NAFTA renegotiations, even the spectre of a trade breakdown cost Canadian industries millions in lost revenue and opportunities. A full-blown trade war would magnify these damages exponentially.
Alberta’s oil and gas sector is the backbone of its economy and a vital contributor to Canada’s prosperity. In 2023, Alberta exported $127 billion worth of oil and gas to the United States, representing 82 percent of its energy exports. This sector accounts for 27 percent of Alberta’s GDP and contributes approximately $28,863 per capita to the provincial economy.
Halting these exports would be harmful to a weakened economy. Alberta’s energy industry supports tens of thousands of jobs and generates substantial government revenues that fund social programs and infrastructure. Alberta is also a net contributor to federal equalization payments, providing billions annually to support less prosperous provinces, including Quebec.
The suggestion that Alberta should stop exporting oil and gas to “do its part” for Canada is economically nonsensical. Unlike Quebec’s electricity sector, Alberta’s energy industry has no immediate alternative markets to replace U.S. demand. Shutting off the tap to America would devastate Alberta and weaken Canada.
In contrast, Quebec’s hydroelectric sector, though significant, plays a smaller role in its economy than oil and gas do in Alberta. In 2022, Hydro-Québec exported $3 billion worth of electricity to the U.S., representing about 12 percent of its total electricity production and 2.9 percent of its GDP. With a population of 8.6 million, these exports amount to $349 per capita.
While losing U.S. electricity exports would hurt Quebec, the economic impact would be far less severe than Alberta’s potential losses. Quebec’s export economy is more diversified, with industries like aerospace, aluminum, pharmaceuticals, and technology providing alternative revenue streams.
The notion that Alberta and Quebec will equally shoulder the burden of a trade war by withholding energy sales to the United States is deeply flawed. Alberta’s reliance on the U.S. market is far greater, and its potential losses are higher. This is partly because Quebec objected to Energy East, the proposed pipeline to carry Alberta energy to Atlantic waters. Halting oil and gas exports would cost Alberta almost 10 times more per capita than it would cost Quebec.
This asymmetry highlights the uneven stakes in any trade conflict. Asking Alberta to sacrifice its economy while Quebec faces minor losses is unfair, economically irrational, and deeply corrosive to national unity. Undermining Alberta’s economy would have repercussions far beyond the province’s borders.
Far from being “anti-Canadian,” as suggested by people with a political agenda to hurt Alberta, Alberta’s reluctance to dismantle its energy sector is a defence of Canada’s broader economic interests. The province’s contributions to federal revenues and equalization payments help sustain national programs that benefit all Canadians. Conversely, Quebec’s relative insulation from the harmful consequences of a trade war explains its more relaxed stance.
For Quebec, halting exports would be akin to a paper cut whereas for Alberta, it would be a lethal wound.
Canada’s strength lies in its economic diversity and regional contributions. Alberta’s oil and gas sector, Quebec’s hydroelectric industry, Atlantic fisheries, and Ontario’s manufacturing base are all critical to the country’s prosperity.
A trade war would disrupt this relationship and risk Canada’s position as a stable and reliable trading partner. Premier Danielle Smith alone has offered a mature and reasonable approach.
The idea of a trade war with the United States is reckless when Canada’s government is in stasis and already mired in the economic problems it created.
Rather than pitting provinces against one another, Ottawa (and the premiers spoiling for a fight) should focus on preserving a proven key to our prosperity: strengthening its relationship with the United States.
We are only a few days into Trump 2.0, but so far, so good.
This administration is more fully staffed on day 1 than the last time and is filled with people who are committed to his causes. That is an important difference as the level of preparation out of the gates is materially different. Depending on which direction the administration goes, this might be good or bad, but make no mistake, Trump 2.0 is far more prepared and ready to act.
We’ve had the first (of what could be many) “personality clashes” in the administration with Ramaswamy stepping away from Musk and DOGE. With so many prolific, high energy individuals, we should expect to see clashes. The only one that could manifest itself and be tough for markets would be if the Trump and Musk relationship goes sideways. There is a comfort level associated with the richest man in the world helping form and guide policy – from a markets perspective. If that gets tested, it could be trouble, but so far, so good.
Trump seemed almost like two different people. One, very “presidential” at the official inauguration, the other, far less so, promoting an almost “campaign-like rally” atmosphere at later events on Inauguration Day.
Many of the topics we discuss are related to issues covered in more detail (along with our outlooks) in Geopolitical Risks and Opportunities in 2025. So far, from the policy side, we have seen:
Some chatter on tariffs, but little being done. It seems obvious to everyone now that this has become a negotiating ploy. He talks about it to rally his supporters but is listening to those who caution him about being too aggressive or too pre-emptive. It looks like we are just starting the negotiations. Have said that, be prepared to see some retrenchment on Trump’s part, though at this point, it might take actual actions rather than words to move markets.
Immigration policy seems to be starting off “reasonably” well (in my opinion) – enforcing the borders, etc. There is very little obvious attempt to round up millions of people, especially law-abiding people, to deport them. I like the tactic of elevating the drug cartels to terrorist organizations, as that could be a big step towards Mexico and the U.S. really taking them down. That would solve so many issues (we’ve discussed “ungoverned space” in this context as well). A solution to the cartels helps the U.S. and Mexico and would set the stage for real growth.
China. Trump seems to want to make a “deal.” No day 1 tariffs. No ban on TikTok. Bizarrely, this makes me nervous as I expect China to try to find a deal that provides them time. That lets them get through their current economic issues, while setting them up for the future (from AI, to high tech, to controlling shipping, to selling their brands globally – with the backing of China Inc.).
AI and compute. The investments announced yesterday are very positive. What is possibly as important as the investments is the signal that those investors/investments are sending. There is a “bandwagon” building and people want to get on it. That could propel forward similar plans from others. I’m hearing about the “Roaring 20s” more and more in my conversations. This area might benefit further from Trump’s desire to deregulate (though I’m not sure if we will like the results, as so far, the U.S. has seemed pretty even handed in its regulation – unlike Europe which hurts the industry time and again).
Crypto. With the SEC setting up a crypto commission. With the pardon of the Silk Road founder. With the launch of multiple meme coins (for the president and those surrounding him). With all those “withs,” it seems plausible that a serious push is being made for a crypto reserve. It makes zero sense to me, but I wouldn’t fight it. While this might be a stretch, the contributions from the crypto community might be the single biggest force in U.S. politics. SBF clearly influenced the midterms before he fell. The crypto community clearly influenced the last election, and I expect they are just spreading their wings. Lots of access to wealth (some of which may not be traceable), potential new means of generating wealth for those they want to support (meme coins), a passionate goal (higher and higher crypto prices), and in many cases, some flair. Every politician must be thinking (or should be thinking) about how to tap into this force! I have not bought any crypto (or crypto ETFS) since the election, but am tempted to, because regardless of whatever I think, there are a lot of supporters in his inner circle in addition to the donors pushing hard.
Peace through Strength. I’ve seen little on the military front that has caught my eye. Though I believe that we will see successes in the Middle East and with Russia and Ukraine. We will return to a state where U.S. deterrence does just that – deter! See Bloomberg TV Last Week – Trump’s Defense Chief Must Restore U.S. Deterrence. I am going to be adding some European stock ETFs to my portfolio in the coming days, on the back of this expectation, along with positioning.
Commodities. From “drill baby drill” to “refine baby refine,” we are in the early stages of actions that will change the commodity space. The president (rightfully so) argues that lower energy prices will keep inflation lower. I agree as energy prices affect everything from manufacturing costs to delivery costs. More broadly speaking, it results in lower commodity prices, lower prices for goods, and potentially services as well (as a byproduct of servicers spending less on the equipment they need). I don’t like owning the commodities, but the commodity producers should do well, though that might be tricky. Companies supplying the goods and services producers need should also do well. This includes anything from heavy equipment makers, to oil field servicers, to anyone in infrastructure. As awful as the fire in Los Angeles is, it may help set the stage for changing the regulations. This is all part and parcel of infrastructure spending.
The Deficit. I see zero progress on this front, but for the past few trading sessions, the bond market has ignored the risk. Trump’s calls to abandon the debt ceiling were completely dismissed. The efforts to keep commodity prices down have probably helped, along with reduced fears of a tariff war. Having said that, look for yields to rise again, with my target being 4.9% on 10s.
Work from Office. I like commercial real estate here as everywhere I look, work from home is going back to being a luxury for the employee, rather than a requirement that employers are forced to offer.
Chips and Space. Nothing is jumping out so far, but I expect to hear more in the coming weeks, along the lines of what we’ve outlined.
So far, so good, but don’t forget the theme of 2025 – “messy” so as things look rosy, prepare for some negative headlines, and when things seem gloomy, expect the narrative to change more positive.
It should be an interesting year, but so far, so good for markets.
WTI Tumbles On Trump Comments, Shrugs Off 9th Straight Weekly Crude Draw
Oil prices are lower this morning (extending a multi-day slump) following comments from President Trump to Davos that he will push Saudi Arabia and OPEC to lower oil prices. Prices had recovered some overnight weakness (due to across the board inventory builds reported by API) before Trump’s comments.
“I’m also going to ask Saudi Arabia and OPEC to bring down the cost of oil,” Trump said in remarks delivered virtually to world leaders gathered in Davos Thursday. “You’ve got to bring it down.”
The remarks stifled a rebound earlier in the session that had been driven by signs that fresh US sanctions on Russian crude, introduced before Trump took office, were tightening the global market.
API
Crude +1mm
Cushing +500k
Gasoline +3.2mm
Distillates +1.9mm
DOE
Crude -1.02mm
Cushing -148k
Gasoline +2.33mm
Distillates -3.07mm
While API reported across the board builds, the official data was almost the opposite with only gasoline stocks rising (though only modestly… even if it was the 10th weekly build in a row). Crude inventories are down for the 9th straight week
Source: Bloomberg
Total US crude stocks dropped to their lowest since March 2022 and the seasonally lowest since 2015…
Source: Bloomberg
US crude production remains near record highs…
Source: Bloomberg
WTI was trading around $74.50 ahead of the inventory data and tricked up very slightly on the crude draw…
“Oil markets are now facing the introduction of a new variable this year, that is the ‘Trump call option’ on energy prices,” said Frank Monkam, head of macro trading at Buffalo Bayou Commodities.
Kantro V King: Top Wall Street Strategists Talk Markets Tonight On ZH
Piper Sandler’s Michael “Kantro” Kantrowitz was ranked 2024’s number 1 portfolio strategist by the widely followed Extel survey. Matt King was head of global strategy for Citibank for two decades and now runs Satori Insights.
Kantro and King will meet face-to-face this Thursday evening at 6pm ET, only accessible on the ZeroHedge homepage and only visible to premium and professional subscribers so sign up now and save the date. The event will be moderated by RealVision’s Ash Bennington.
Overview of their positions below.
Kantro: Cautiously Optimistic
Modest economic growth ahead. Manufacturing appears to be picking up — either because of the Trump win or Fed easing cycle. PMI to increase.
Rates should fall, but “ifthe 10 year goes above 4.5%, then markets are going to struggle.”
“Ironically, that rise in the unemployment rate has actually been a good thing for stocks because it helped to get inflation down. It started to get the Fed pivoting.”
King: Optimism Priced In
U.S. equities ahead of their skis compared to rest of globe (pictured bottom left). While this is not unjustified as American firms are the “biggest and the best” (bottom right)…
…money is beginning to flow out.
Both strategists agree: what Trump does on tariffs and immigration will be key to watch.
Tune into the live debate: Thursday, Jan 23 at 6pm ET right at the top of the ZeroHedge homepage but only if you are logged in as a professional or premium user so sign up now. Professional users may email debates@zerohedge.com to submit questions for the debaters.
The U.S. Supreme Court rejected three doctors’ emergency request to prevent a California agency from investigating them over advice they give to patients that does not conform to the state’s position on COVID-19.
Justice Elena Kagan, who handles urgent appeals from California, rejected the emergency application in Kory v. Bonta late on Jan. 21. She did not explain why.
The decision came 13 days after the case was docketed by the court on Jan. 8. Kagan did not ask California to respond to the application.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. was listed as one of two attorneys representing the physicians in the case.
President Donald Trump has nominated Kennedy, an activist on environment and health-related issues, to be secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
The other co-counsel on the application is Richard Jaffe of Sacramento, California.
The Medical Board of California considers the expression of the doctors’ dissenting views on the disease as potentially dangerous misinformation that needs to be suppressed.
The board argues that it has legal authority to discipline the doctors for speech it deems to be medical misconduct. The physicians counter that they didn’t surrender their free speech rights when they obtained medical licenses.
The application was initiated by Dr. Pierre Kory and Dr. Brian Tyson, both medical doctors; Dr. Le Trinh Hoag, an osteopathic physician; Physicians for Informed Consent; and Children’s Health Defense, a nonprofit organization founded by Kennedy.
Kennedy has resigned from the nonprofit because of his pending HHS nomination, Jaffe told The Epoch Times.
The application stated that California’s executive and legislative branches are “threatening California physicians with professional discipline for their viewpoint speech contrary to the mainstream COVID narrative.”
After the Federation of State Medical Boards in July 2021 asked its member medical boards in the United States to punish physicians for advancing perceived “COVID misinformation” and “disinformation” among patients and the public, Medical Board of California President Kristina Lawson announced in February 2022 that the board planned to sanction physicians for what it called “COVID misinformation.”
The California Legislature passed AB 2098, which took effect in January 2023, making the dissemination of “misinformation” about the disease an offense for which doctors could be disciplined, the application stated.
After a federal district judge halted the law in January 2023, the Legislature repealed the misinformation provision effective January 2024. The application said the board continued to probe physicians for violating its COVID-19 policy following the repeal.
The applicants were challenging “the practice and policy of threatening and targeting physicians with discipline for providing information and recommendations contrary to the mainstream COVID narrative,” according to the application.
On April 23, 2024, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California rejected a request to preliminarily block the state’s enforcement program, holding that the applicants lacked legal standing.
Standing refers to the right of someone to sue in court. The parties must show a strong enough connection to the claim to justify their participation in a lawsuit.
The ruling was upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on Nov. 27, 2024.
The California Business and Professions Code, under which the California Medical Board claims its disciplinary authority, “regulates conduct, not speech,” the appeals court stated. “It provides for enforcement of the standard of care, which is the standard for physicians’ treatment of patients,” the court added.
To demonstrate standing, the applicants had to demonstrate that there was “a credible threat that the [board] will prosecute them under the statute,” but they did not do so, the appeals court stated.
The Ninth Circuit said the court record showed that the only disciplinary action taken against a doctor “involved a physician encouraging her patient to use veterinary ivermectin and resulted in the stipulated surrender of her license.”
The applicants were asking the Supreme Court for an injunction stopping the state from “continuing their enforcement program targeting the information, opinions, and recommendations on COVID-19 which California licensed physicians may provide to patients.”
A related challenge that Kennedy and Jaffe filed with the Supreme Court was rejected by the full court on Jan. 13.
In Stockton v. Ferguson, the justices were asked to prevent the Washington Medical Commission from investigating licensed physicians in the state over their criticism of COVID-19 policies.
The application was brought by former professional basketball player John Stockton along with Drs. Richard Eggleston, Thomas Siler, Daniel Moynihan, another 50 unidentified medical doctors, and Children’s Health Defense.
Jaffe told The Epoch Times it was “not surprising” that Kagan denied the application in Kory v. Bonta given that the full court declined the application in Stockton v. Ferguson.
The lawyer said his clients in the California case will either file a petition for certiorari, or review, with the Supreme Court, or continue pursuing the lawsuit that is still pending in federal district court.
“The plaintiffs are committed to pressing their case for the right of physicians to speak their truth to patients, and to the public,” he said.
Jaffe said “the tide is turning,” and pointed to Trump’s executive order signed Jan. 20 aimed at preventing government censorship, along with Facebook co-founder Mark Zuckerberg’s recent “admission that [Facebook parent company] Meta had been bullied into suppressing speech the government did not like.”
After Kennedy is confirmed, “we are hopeful that the government will start releasing information about the COVID vaccines and treatments which may further support the wisdom of the principle that physicians have the right to speak out against the government narrative without fear of government reprisal.”
Before the recent pandemic, the courts “fully recognized those rights, but I think COVID scared many, including judges to grant a constitutional exception in times of crises.”
Jaffe added that his side remains optimistic that in the future the Supreme Court “will reject what these two states are doing in these physician speech cases.”
The Epoch Times reached out to the Medical Board of California and to California Attorney General Rob Bonta, who represents the board, for comment. No replies were received by publication time.
