Arlington, Va.—Today, the Supreme Court denied review in a First Amendment case brought by the state of Texas against Brownsville veterinarian Dr. Ron Hines. The denial means that the previous ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit stands. This decision, one of the best in the nation for protecting advice as free speech, comes after a 13-year battle for Dr. Hines, who is represented by the Institute for Justice (IJ), a non-profit, constitutional law firm.

Thirteen years ago, Texas tried to silence Dr. Hines on the ground that the advice he was giving pet owners via the internet was not protected speech because it took the form of individualized advice. The courts initially agreed, but Dr. Hines refused to give up and he has now helped changed First Amendment law for countless Americans.

“This is a victory for Dr. Hines and every American’s right to give and receive advice,” said IJ Senior Attorney Jeff Rowes. “The free speech right to offer and listen to advice is critical for the information age, making clear that the First Amendment protects licensed professionals and those who want their help.”

Between 2002 and 2012 Dr. Hines gave online advice to pet owners all across the world until the Texas State Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners said his advice was illegal—not because it harmed an animal or was inaccurate, but because Texas prohibits veterinarians from sharing their expertise with pet owners without first examining their pets in person. Dr. Hines teamed up with the IJ in 2013 to challenge that restriction but the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in 2015 that his advice was regulated by occupational licensure and hence not protected by the First Amendment. After a landmark 2018 Supreme Court decision (NIFLA v. Becerra) rejected the so-called “professional speech doctrine,” which excluded occupational speech from the First Amendment, Dr. Hines again partnered with IJ in 2018 to vindicate his right to free speech. This time, after many twists and turns, the 5th Circuit ruled in his favor, and today’s decision by the Supreme Court not to grant Texas’s appeal cements the idea that constitutional protection is afforded to Americans who want to give advice online without being punished for it.

Countless Americans—from tour guides to lawyers—earn their living in occupations that consist primarily of speech.  But often, government officials harness occupational licensing laws to stifle this speech and infringe on the right to earn an honest living, often at the behest of politically connected industries.

A recent ruling by the Supreme Court in Chiles v. Salazar has  reinforced IJ’s work and the principle that speech is protected under the First Amendment even if it’s related to earning a living.

“Under the First Amendment speech is still protected even if it’s related to an occupation,” said IJ senior attorney Andrew Ward. “We will continue to fight for the rights of all Americans to exercise their First Amendment rights.”  

IJ has a long history of successfully advocating for the First Amendment. Previously, IJ protected a Mississippi startup’s First Amendment right to create informal maps in the face of a regulatory board’s failed bid to shut the company down for supposedly practicing “land surveying” without a license. In California, IJ successfully defended a horseshoeing teacher’s right to talk about horseshoeing to willing students and the right of two end-of-life doulas to talk about home funerals with willing clients. IJ has also secured court victories all over the country—from the District of Columbia to Charleston to Savannah—for tour guides who want to tell stories without needing the government’s permission. 

#  #  #

To arrange interviews on this subject, journalists may contact Phillip Suderman, IJ’s Communications Project Manager, at psuderman@staging.ij.org or (850) 376-4110. More information on the cases is available at: https://staging.ij.org/case/texas-veterinary-speech-ii/