Former NBA star John Stockton makes a last appeal to the Supreme Court

SALT LAKE CITY — The attorney for former Utah Jazz point guard and 10-time All-Star John Stockton and his co-plaintiffs filed a letter to the Supreme Court on Monday as a last-ditch effort to get the court to address a case involving the former NBA player.

The case centers on a COVID-19 dispute and whether the government can discipline doctors for what they say publicly.

In 2024, Stockton filed a lawsuit alongside two medical doctors and the nonprofit Children's Health Defense against the Washington Medical Commission and the Washington state attorney general over its COVID-19 information policies.

The two doctors were disciplined by the commission for "unprofessional conduct" after publishing their opinions online and in newspapers that "vaccines are unsafe and COVID tests are inaccurate, as well as lauding alternative treatments that are scientifically proven to be ineffective and even potentially dangerous," per the Washington Attorney General's Office.

In 2024, a federal judge dismissed the case, claiming the plaintiffs' arguments "are unripe" and that their "First Amendment and due process challenges are without merit."

But Stockton and his fellow plaintiffs argue that punishing doctors for their free speech is unconstitutional under the First Amendment.

In May 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit agreed with the lower court decision. "We appreciate that the plaintiffs vigorously disagree with the Washington medical practices and actions. For several reasons, though, we cannot reach the merits of the plaintiffs' constitutional challenges," Judge Milan D. Smith wrote.

In their final plea, the petitioners filed a letter on Monday in lieu of a reply brief to Chief Justice John Roberts, asking the court to review and overturn the lower court rulings.

A recent Supreme Court ruling (8-1) in Chiles v. Salazar, they argue, "Held that viewpoint-based restrictions on professional speech require strict scrutiny under the First Amendment, that there is no separate category of 'professional speech' subject to lesser protection, and that the government may not suppress speech by relabeling it as conduct or treatment," per the letter.

If the Supreme Court agrees to take the case, it could potentially set a precedent on professional speech, if the judges agree with the petitioners' request to "hold that public viewpoint speech by professionals is subject to the strictest possible scrutiny, and government restrictions on such speech are (or are likely) per se unconstitutional."

Related topics