A Texas law prohibiting veterinarians from remote care without first visiting animals violates U.S. constitutional rights, a federal appeals court has ruled.
“Today, we uphold Dr. Hines’s First Amendment rights,” U.S. Circuit Judge Don R. Willett wrote.
The Texas State Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners determined that Hines’s care of animals violated a law that requires veterinarians to establish a veterinarian client-patient relationship, either by examining an animal in person or visiting the premises at which the animal is staying. The state rejected Hines’s attempts to avoid punishment and, under an agreement between the parties, Hines agreed to serve a year of probation, pay a $500 fine, and retake part of the veterinary licensing exam.
The courts turned away Hines’s legal cases against the law, but in accordance with a 2018 U.S. Supreme Court decision that voided a California law for infringing on First Amendment rights, the new ruling sided with the veterinarian against the Texas law.
Because it involves the content of speech, the statute is presumptively unconstitutional and state officials must present evidence that is narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest, Willett wrote for the Fifth Circuit panel.
State officials and their experts failed to show that in-person exams of animals reduce the risk of misdiagnoses from telemedicine, according to the judges.
Two experts testified, for instance, that they thought the care Hines provided remotely left animals in a worse position. But the experts’ testimony amounted to “conjecture and speculation,” the appeals court said, noting that one expert admitted “it is unknown if Dr. Hines’s actions caused harm.”
Even if in-person examinations prevent harm, state officials have not shown that the law alleviates the harm, Willett said.
He pointed to how the law enables veterinarians to avoid in-person examinations in establishing a veterinarian client-patient relationship, as long as the veterinarians make “medically appropriate and timely visits to the premises on which the animal is kept.” Texas law also lets doctors examine humans remotely without first establishing a client-patient relationship, which undercuts the state’s position, the judge said.
The law is also not narrowly tailored to advance the state’s interest because the state rejected less restrictive alternatives proposed by Hines, according to the panel.
U.S. Circuit Judges Cory T. Wilson and Irma Carrillo Ramirez joined Willett.
The panel reversed a district court ruling that had dismissed the case and remanded it back to the court with instructions to enter judgment for Hines.
The Texas State Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners did not respond to a request for comment.
“I fought this long battle for the next generation of veterinarians, pet owners, and animals, especially those around the world who don’t have access to an American vet,” Hines said in a statement released by his attorneys with the Institute for Justice. “I hope my First Amendment victory causes states across the county to respect the free speech rights of their veterinarians.”
