Scott Jensen v. Minnesota Board of Medical Practice
Case Attorney: Nicholas Nelson
The Upper Midwest Law Center (UMLC) represents Dr. Scott Jensen—a longtime Minnesota physician, former State Senator, and gubernatorial candidate—in a series of lawsuits challenging what he alleges were unconstitutional investigations into his protected political speech.
After more than 40 years of medical practice without a single complaint from a patient, Dr. Jensen was subjected to multiple investigations by the Minnesota Board of Medical Practice (BMP). According to the lawsuit, those investigations began only after Dr. Jensen publicly expressed views on COVID-19 policy and entered the political arena.
UMLC argues these actions crossed a clear constitutional line.
What This Case Is About
At its core, this case asks a fundamental question:
Can the government use a professional licensing board to investigate and potentially punish someone for their political speech?
Dr. Jensen’s lawsuit alleges the answer must be no.
According to the complaint, the BMP launched five separate investigations over a three-year period—all tied to Dr. Jensen’s public statements, not his patient care. None of the complaints involved treatment decisions or medical malpractice.
UMLC argues this represents a form of unconstitutional retaliation and an attempt to chill speech on matters of public concern.
A Broader Pattern of Government Overreach
In addition to the lawsuit against the Board of Medical Practice, UMLC also filed a separate action against the Minnesota Attorney General’s Office.
That case alleges the Attorney General improperly withheld government data requested by Dr. Jensen—going so far as to deny access based on concern over how the information might be publicly discussed.
Together, the lawsuits raise serious concerns about the use of government power to target individuals based on viewpoint.
Key Legal Claims
The lawsuits assert violations of:
- The First Amendment (free speech and viewpoint discrimination)
- The Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection)
- The Minnesota Government Data Practices Act
UMLC argues that professional speech, especially on public policy issues, is fully protected under the Constitution and cannot be singled out for investigation simply because it is controversial.
Case Developments
After an initial dismissal in federal court based on standing, Dr. Jensen filed an amended complaint detailing the harm caused by the investigations, including:
Thousands of hours spent responding to investigations
Lost professional and political opportunities
A lasting chilling effect on his speech
In April 2025, Dr. Jensen appealed the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, where the case remains ongoing.
Why It Matters
This case goes far beyond one physician.
It raises critical questions about whether licensed professionals—doctors, lawyers, and others—can speak freely on public issues without fear of retaliation from government regulators.
If government agencies can investigate individuals based on their viewpoints, it risks silencing dissent and undermining open debate—especially during moments of public importance.
UMLC continues to pursue this case to ensure that constitutional protections apply equally to all Americans, regardless of profession or political beliefs.