The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit today ruled in favor of Dr. Scott Jensen in a First Amendment lawsuit brought by the Upper Midwest Law Center, reversing the dismissal of his case against the Minnesota Board of Medical Practice and sending it back to the district court for further proceedings.
The case, Jensen v. Minnesota Board of Medical Practice, et al., challenges years of investigations into Dr. Jensen’s medical license following his public comments on COVID-19 policy. According to the Eighth Circuit, the Board received 18 complaints about Dr. Jensen from the start of the pandemic through mid-2022, which led to four investigations.
The Court held that the district court “set the bar too high” when it dismissed the case for lack of standing. The opinion recognized that Dr. Jensen alleged concrete injuries, including time and money spent responding to investigations and a chilling effect on his speech.
“Government licensing boards cannot use investigations as a weapon to chill political speech,” said Doug Seaton, President and Founder of the Upper Midwest Law Center. “Dr. Jensen was forced to spend years defending his medical license because he spoke publicly about COVID-19 policy and government overreach. Today’s decision makes clear that public officials do not get a free pass when they use regulatory power to intimidate dissenting voices.”
The Eighth Circuit also recognized that the investigations plausibly caused Dr. Jensen to change his message and decline public speaking invitations. The Court explained that a chilling effect on First Amendment rights can create standing, especially when a government official’s conduct would cause a person of ordinary firmness to self-censor.
“This is an important precedent for the enforcement of all our rights. If the government responds to constitutionally protected criticism by threatening your career and livelihood, it will have to answer for it in court—just as it should under the Constitution,” said Nicholas Nelson, Senior Appellate Counsel at the Upper Midwest Law Center.
The case now returns to the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. The Eighth Circuit reversed the district court’s judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.
Read the decision here.