Jensen v. Minnesota Board of Medical Practice

Background

Dr. Scott Jensen was a licensed physician and the Republican candidate for Minnesota governor in the 2022 election. He publicly discussed COVID-19, its treatment, public-health requirements, and Governor Walz’s management of Minnesota’s response. The Minnesota Board of Medical Practice received complaints about Jensen’s health-related statements and conduct.

Between June 2020 and October 2021, the Board sent Jensen five notices concerning complaints. Four notices invited written responses, and one stated that a complaint had already been dismissed. The Board later held a conference with Jensen in March 2023 about complaints concerning his public statements on COVID-19 and patient care. The opinion states that none of the complaints advanced beyond information collection, all were eventually dismissed, and no contested hearing or corrective action resulted.

Jensen sued the Board, several Board members, a medical regulations analyst, and unnamed defendants. He claimed that Minnesota laws authorizing the Board to receive and investigate citizen complaints violated the First Amendment on their face and as applied to him. He also asserted claims involving unconstitutional conditions, viewpoint discrimination, and “class of one” equal protection.

Standing Analysis

The defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that Jensen lacked standing, that his claims were moot, that the Board and its members were immune from suit, and that he failed to state a constitutional claim. Standing is the requirement that a plaintiff show an injury in fact, a connection between that injury and the defendant’s conduct, and a court remedy that could address the injury.

The court held that Jensen did not adequately allege an injury in fact. For his First Amendment claims, Jensen needed to allege an objectively reasonable chilling of his speech, a credible threat of prosecution, or another concrete and personal harm. The court found that he did not allege that he stopped speaking when he otherwise would have, spoke less fully, or faced a credible threat that future speech would lead to complaints and investigations. Instead, the complaint described Jensen continuing to speak publicly about COVID-19 after the Board received and resolved complaints.

Because Jensen did not establish standing for his as-applied First Amendment claims, the court also found that he lacked standing for his facial challenges. The court further concluded that his unconstitutional-conditions claim depended on a First Amendment injury that he had not shown. His viewpoint-discrimination and equal-protection theories likewise did not establish a concrete personal injury. The court also found that Jensen’s allegations about different treatment of other physicians were conclusory and unsupported by specific facts.

Disposition

The court did not reach the defendants’ remaining arguments concerning sovereign immunity, qualified immunity, or failure to state a claim. Judge Jerry W. Blackwell ordered that the defendants’ motion to dismiss was GRANTED and that Jensen’s complaint was DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of standing. The order permitted Jensen to file an amended complaint within 21 days. If he did not do so, judgment would be entered and the case would be closed.