MCDONALD V. LAWSON, No. 22-56220 (9th Cir. 2024)
Annotate this CaseThe United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in a case involving physicians who challenged California's Assembly Bill 2098 (AB 2098), which declared it unprofessional conduct for a doctor to provide COVID-19-related disinformation or misinformation to patients, ruled that the case is moot following the repeal of AB 2098. The court found no reasonable expectation that California would reenact AB 2098 or similar legislation. Additionally, evidence from the Executive Director of the Medical Board of California indicated that the board's employees and agents had been instructed not to enforce AB 2098, and that the board would have no legal authority to enforce the law once it was no longer in effect. Therefore, the court vacated the lower court's judgement and instructed it to dismiss the case due to mootness.
Court Description: COVID-19 /Mootness The panel vacated the district court’s judgment and remanded with instructions to dismiss as moot two cases brought by doctors who challenged California’s now repealed Assembly Bill 2098, which made it “unprofessional conduct” for a doctor to provide COVID-19-related “disinformation” or “misinformation” to patients.
The panel held that California’s repeal of AB 2098 triggers the presumption of mootness. Plaintiffs did not contend that “there is a reasonable expectation” that California will reenact AB 2098 or similar legislation, nor did plaintiffs point to anything in the record so indicating. AB 2098 was enacted in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, which is not a routine occurrence that is reasonably likely to reoccur. While it may be reasonably likely, as a general matter, that future pandemics may occur, * The Honorable Kathleen Cardone, United States District Judge for the Western District of Texas, sitting by designation.
this alone is insufficient to overcome the presumption of mootness.
Because there is no indication that California is reasonably likely to reenact AB 2098 or anything substantially similar to it, and because the possibility of California enforcing AB 2098 following its repeal is at best “remote,” there was no longer an ongoing case or controversy to resolve. Accordingly, the panel vacated the district court’s judgment and remanded with instructions for the district court to dismiss the two cases as moot.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.