Professional Documents
Culture Documents
14-1543
IN THE
QUESTION PRESENTED
Are restrictions on occupational speech subject to
First Amendment scrutiny or only rational-basis
review?
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page(s)
QUESTION PRESENTED .......................................... i
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ....................................... v
INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE................................ 1
STATEMENT.............................................................. 2
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT .................................... 3
ARGUMENT ............................................................... 5
I.
B.
C.
D.
II.
III.
B.
B.
The
First
Amendment
Protects
Listeners Right to Hear the Message 24
C.
iii
D.
CONCLUSION.......................................................... 30
iv
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page(s)
44 Liquormart, Inc. v. Rhode Island,
517 U.S. 484 (1996) ........................................ 26
Arkansas Writers Project, Inc. v. Ragland,
481 U.S. 221, 231-32 (1987) ........................... 16
Associated Press v. United States,
326 U.S. 1 (1945) ............................................ 24
Cantwell v. State of Connecticut,
310 U.S. 296 (1940) ........................................ 27
Conant v. Walters,
309 F.3d 629 (9th Cir. 2002) .............4, 9, 11, 12
Edenfield v. Fane,
507 U.S. 761 (1993) ........................................ 28
Edwards v. District of Columbia,
755 F.3d 996 (D.C. Cir. 2014) .....................4, 19
Florida Bar v. Went for It, Inc.,
515 U.S. 618, 634 (1995) ................................ 10
Giboney v. Empire Storage & Ice Co.,
336 U.S. 490 (1949) .......................................... 7
Glickman v. Wileman Bros. & Elliott, Inc.,
521 U.S. 457 (1997) ........................................ 20
Griswold v. Connecticut,
381 U.S. 479 (1965) ........................................ 24
Hines v. Alldredge,
783 F.3d 197 (5th Cir. 2015) .............3, 7, 13, 14
Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project,
561 U.S. 1 (2010) ...............................4, 5, 14, 15
Locke v. Shore,
634 F.3d 1185 (11th Cir. 2011) ........................ 9
Lowe v. S.E.C.,
472 U.S. 181 (1985) .......................3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
Mezibov v. Allen,
411 F.3d 712 (6th Cir. 2005) ............................ 9
R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, Minn.,
505 U.S. 377 (1992) ........................................ 14
Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. F.C.C.,
395 U.S. 367 (1969) ........................................ 24
Reed v. Town of Gilbert, Ariz.,
135 S. Ct. 2218, 2229-30 (2015)..........14, 15, 16
Schneider v. State,
308 U.S. 147 (1939) ........................................ 27
Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc.,
131 S. Ct. 2653 (2011) .................................... 26
vi
Stuart v. Camnitz,
774 F.3d 238, 251 (4th Cir. 2014) cert. denied
sub nom. Walker-McGill v. Stuart, No. 141172, 2015 WL 1331672
(U.S. June 15, 2015)......................................... 9
Thomas v. Collins,
323 U.S. 516 (1945) .....................................7, 10
Thompson v. W. States Med. Ctr.,
535 U.S. 357, 374, (2002) ............................... 26
Time Warner Entm't Co., L.P. v. United States,
211 F.3d 1313 (D.C. Cir. 2000) ...................... 13
Turner Broad. Sys., Inc. v. F.C.C.,
512 U.S. 622 (1994) ........................................ 16
Turner Broad. Sys., Inc. v. F.C.C.,
520 U.S. 180 (1997) ...............................5, 12, 13
United Mine Workers of Am., Dist. 12 v. Illinois State
Bar Ass'n,
389 U.S. 217 (1967) ...................................27, 28
United States v. O'Brien,
391 U.S. 367 (1968) .....................................5, 12
Virginia St. Bd. of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens
Consumer Council, Inc.,
425 U.S. 748 (1976) .............................24, 25, 26
vii
OTHER AUTHORITIES
15 U.S.C. 80b-3(c) ...........................................................6, 7
Tex. Occ. Code Ann. 801.001, et seq. ....................... 2
Tex. Occ. Code Ann. 801.351(a)............................... 2
Tex. Occ. Code Ann. 801.351(b)............................... 2
Tex. Occ. Code Ann. 801.351(c) ............................... 2
Tex. Occ. Code Ann. 801.504 ................................... 2
World Health Organization, Avian Influenza Fact
Sheet,
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/avian_inf
luenza/en/ (last visited July 23, 2015) ..................... 30
viii
STATEMENT
Under Texas law, a person may not practice
veterinary medicine unless a veterinarian-clientpatient relationship exists. Tex. Occ. Code Ann.
801.351(a) ( 801.001 et seq. Licensing Act).
Establishing such a relationship requires, in part,
that
the
veterinarian,
possesses
sufficient
knowledge of the animal to initiate at least a general
or preliminary diagnosis of the animals medical
condition, which requires that the veterinarian has
recently seen, or is personally acquainted with, the
keeping and care of the animal by: (1) examining the
animal; or (2) making medically appropriate and
timely visits to the premises on which the animal is
kept. Id. at 801.351(a), (b) (Physical Examination
Requirement). In 2005, Texas amended the
Licensing Act to prohibit establishing a veterinarianclient-patient relationship by telephone or electronic
means. Id. at 801.351(c). Violations of the Licensing
Act are criminal offenses. Id. at 801.504.
Dr. Ronald S. Hines, a retired, Texas-licensed
veterinarian, published pet-care articles on his
website. Tex. App. 40, 42. He also posted responses
to questions he received by e-mail and provided
individualized advice by e-mail or telephone, such as
referring pet owners to examining veterinarians,
offering insights into conflicting diagnoses received
from local veterinarians, and consulting with
treating veterinarians. App. 42-43, 45. He did not
2
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
Texas has made it a criminal offense for a
licensed veterinarian to provide veterinary advice
over the telephone or via electronic means unless the
veterinarian has first physically examined the
animal. Although telephones have been available for
over a century, Texas did not criminalize providing
veterinary advice by telephone until 2005. The Fifth
Circuit upheld this newfangled restraint on
veterinary speech by relying on the concurrence in
Lowe v. S.E.C., 472 U.S. 181 (1985), for the notion
that professional speech is necessarily incidental to
3
ARGUMENT
I.
17
18
21
A. The
Poor,
Aged,
Disabled,
and
Geographically Isolated Stand to Gain
the Most from Telephonic and InternetBased Veterinary Advice
This case is of national importance because the
holding below will have the effect of precluding the
most vulnerable members of society from benefiting
from advances in technology, burdening both
speaker and listener.
Dr. Hines retired in 2002 after his age and
disabilities made it too difficult for him to remain in
practice. App. 42. By providing veterinary advice via
telephone and e-mail, Dr. Hines has been able to
continue applying his decades of experience despite
his physical limitations. App. 42-47.
22
animal owner a false sense of security. Case No. 1440403 (5th Cir.), Appellants Br. 23. The States
concern about the listeners reaction does not excuse
violating the First Amendment rights of both
speaker and listener.
It is well established that the government cannot
preclude speech because it fears the listeners
response to truthful information. Sorrell v. IMS
Health Inc., 131 S. Ct. 2653, 2670-71, (2011) ([F]ear
that people would make bad decisions if given
truthful information cannot justify content-based
burdens on speech.); Thompson v. W. States Med.
Ctr., 535 U.S. 357, 374, (2002) ([F]ear that people
would make bad decisions if given truthful
information about compounded drugs did not justify
restrictions); Virginia St. Bd. of Pharmacy, 425 U.S.
at 769770 (holding that fear that if people received
price advertising from pharmacists, then they would
destroy the pharmacist-customer relationship by
going from one pharmacist to another was
insufficient to justify a ban on such advertising.)
This Court has held that [t]he First Amendment
directs us to be especially skeptical of regulations
that seek to keep people in the dark for what the
government perceives to be their own good. 44
Liquormart, Inc. v. Rhode Island, 517 U.S. 484, 503,
(1996). Here, the state seeks to keep pet owners in
the dark unless they, or Dr. Hines, are able to
undertake a potentially arduousand wholly
26
http://modernfarmer.com/2014/06/man-dies-mad-cow-diseasetexas/
8
29
30
Respectfully submitted,
ILYA SHAPIRO
CATO INSTITUTE
1000 Mass. Ave., NW
Washington, D.C. 20001
Phone: 202-842-0200
ishapiro@cato.org
PATRICK J. WRIGHT
MACKINAC CENTER
FOR PUBLIC POLICY
140 West Main Street
Midland, Michigan 48640
Phone: 989-430-3912
wright@mackinac.org
31