Supreme Court declines to issue stay in case involving Eggleston

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday opted against issuing a stay on the prosecution of physicians for allegedly spreading COVID-19 misinformation in a case involving a retired Clarkston ophthalmologist.

The high court considered the matter in conference Friday and issued its order Monday morning, according to Todd Richardson, a Clarkston attorney who is involved in the case.

Had the Supreme Court issued a stay, it likely would have covered cases nationwide, Richardson said.

Despite the ruling, there isn’t much effect on the case involving Dr. Richard Eggleston, of Clarkston.

Eggleston was under investigation by the Washington State Medical Commission over alleged COVID-19 misinformation he shared in opinion columns he authored for the Lewiston Tribune’s Opinion section. The Washington Court of Appeals stopped the investigation last week so that a case brought by Eggleston and others could proceed.

That case — which argues Washington’s policy that bars doctors from spreading COVID-19 misinformation is an infringement on physicians’ free speech rights — is being pursued by an eclectic group including Eggleston, retired NBA legend John Stockton, and possible Trump cabinet member Robert Kennedy Jr. and his Children’s Health Defense group. Richardson is one of the attorneys on the case.

Richardson said the Supreme Court’s decision to not issue a stay was “disappointing,” but “not wholly unexpected.”

So the matter will now remain in the 9th Circuit Court. Eggleston’s group must submit written briefings by Feb. 14 and there will be oral arguments in May.

“In some ways, additional time may be our friend,” Richardson said in a written statement. “It seems that with each new day we are getting new revelations about the problems with the accepted (COVID-19) narrative, and with the nomination of RFK, Jr., we have reason to believe the truth will come out. The more the truth comes out, the more flawed the commission’s position is demonstrated to be, and I have to believe that these continued revelations have an effect.

“In the end, it really is freedom of speech for doctors that is as stake,” Richardson added. “The argument that doctors lose their freedom of speech because they accept a license from the state medical commission is enough to make reason stare.”

Baney may be contacted at mbaney@lmtribune.com or (208) 848-2251. Follow him on X @MattBaney_Trib.