ST. PAUL, Minn. — A federal lawsuit brought by Scott Jensen, a former Republican gubernatorial candidate in Minnesota, was dismissed by a federal judge. Jensen had accused the Minnesota Board of Medical Practice of politically motivated investigations tied to his statements about COVID-19. The court decided on March 31 to dismiss the case without prejudice, meaning Jensen retains the option to refile.
Jensen, a family physician who lost the 2022 governor race to Democrat Tim Walz, originally filed the lawsuit in June 2023. He claimed that his First Amendment rights to free speech were infringed upon and that the board had abused its authority during its investigations. His assertions, which conflicted with mainstream media narratives, were described as both critical and supportive of the actions taken by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
In its first dismissal in March 2024, the court stated that Jensen failed to show a concrete injury arising from these alleged investigations. The dismissal order highlighted that his claims of being politically targeted and the notion that anonymous complaints had an ongoing chilling effect did not qualify as standing. Jensen also argued that the board showed favoritism toward physicians with differing views, a claim the court found lacked sufficient grounding for claims of viewpoint discrimination and equal protection.
Jensen quickly filed an amended complaint less than three weeks following the initial dismissal. However, the court once again dismissed the lawsuit earlier this year, reinforcing that emotional distress alone does not constitute an actionable injury for establishing standing in court.
Following the court’s decision, Jensen expressed his broader concern about freedom of speech in a statement to the Upper Midwest Law Center. “It’s about all of us and our right to free speech,” he said. “If it can happen to me, why couldn’t it happen to anyone?”
The Upper Midwest Law Center, representing Jensen, voiced disagreement with the court’s rulings. Senior Counsel James Dickey stated, “Dr. Jensen will appeal, and he will win.” Dickey emphasized that throughout his 40-year medical career, Jensen had never been under investigation until his political engagement escalated. Dickey remarked, “Suddenly, because he was willing to speak out and subsequently chose to run for governor, he was investigated by his licensing board — appointed by his opponent — five times.”
This case has drawn attention to the complex intersections of professional governance, political activities, and free speech rights. As the situation develops with the impending appeal, it highlights ongoing debates around the limits and protections under the First Amendment in professional and political contexts.
Please note: This article was automatically generated by Open AI, and it is important to consider that certain details about people, facts, and circumstances may be inaccurate. For corrections, retractions, or removal requests, please contact contact@publiclawlibrary.org.