Urges Supreme Court to Protect Medical Freedom and Informed ConsentWashington, DC - April 9, 2026On April 6, 2026, Dr. Simone Gold and the AFLDS legal team filed an&nbsp;<a href="https://res.cloudinary.com/aflds/image/upload/v1775759970/AFLDS_Sweeney_Amici_Brief_1030bb5752.pdf?updated_at=2026-04-09T18:39:30.556Z" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">amici curiae brief</a> with the United States Supreme Court in&nbsp;Sweeney v. University of Colorado Hospital Authority (25-1055) supporting the Petitioners’ request for <a href="https://res.cloudinary.com/aflds/image/upload/v1775759969/Sweeney_Petition_Writ_47468d370c.pdf?updated_at=2026-04-09T18:39:30.180Z" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">writ of certiorari</a> and reversal of the Tenth Circuit’s decision.Last year, AFLDS&nbsp;<a href="https://aflds.org/about-us/press-releases/aflds-files-amici-curiae-brief-in-sweeney-v-ucha">filed</a> an&nbsp;amici curiae brief in support of the Petitioners in the Tenth Circuit.The Petitioners are former healthcare employees of the University of Colorado Hospital Authority who were terminated after refusing COVID-19 injections that were mandated as a condition of employment. The Respondents include the hospital authority and associated state officials responsible for enforcing the mandate.AFLDS is asking the Supreme Court to grant certiorari and determine whether government actors and affiliated institutions can condition employment on the acceptance of an investigational medical product. If left unreviewed, the Tenth Circuit’s ruling permits coercive medical mandates to stand without meaningful judicial scrutiny, even where fundamental constitutional rights are implicated.The Petitioners challenged the mandate, alleging violations of their constitutional rights, including bodily autonomy, equal protection, and due process. The district court dismissed the case, and the Tenth Circuit affirmed.AFLDS maintains that this case presents a clear constitutional violation. Coercively mandating dangerous and potentially fatal experimental drugs, in direct violation of informed consent, cannot be&nbsp;condoned. These vaccine mandate cases are flooding the lower courts, presenting urgent questions of public policy that demand this Court’s immediate attention. Lives are at stake.Further, we contend that conditioning employment on the acceptance of an investigational medical product violates the fundamental right to refuse medical treatment and exceeds the lawful authority of government actors. Federal law requires that individuals be informed of their right to accept or refuse products authorized under emergency use, a right that is nullified when refusal results in termination.“This case presents a clear example of&nbsp;dangerous and unconstitutional coercion,” said AFLDS attorney David Dalia. “The government has no authority to force individuals to accept an unwanted medical intervention that does not protect any other people as a condition of keeping their job. That is a direct violation of informed consent and of fundamental constitutional protections. When refusal leads to termination, consent is a fiction. Informed consent to medical treatment can never be coerced. The Court should not allow this kind of overreach to stand.”Dr. Simone Gold, Founder and President of America’s Frontline Doctors, added, “These healthcare workers did what every human has the right to do, they said no. For that, they were stripped of their careers.&nbsp; Informed consent cannot exist under threat of losing your livelihood. When the government can dictate medical decisions under threat of losing your livelihood, we have crossed a dangerous line, and it will not end with COVID.”This case presents an opportunity for the Supreme Court to reaffirm constitutional limits on government authority and restore the principle that medical decisions must remain voluntary.Stay tuned for further updates on this case and our ongoing efforts to defend medical freedom and constitutional rights nationwide.# # #About AFLDSWe are the Nation's independent authority on ethical and transparent standards in science, health, and human rights. We provide individuals with unbiased and accurate information from the world's top experts in medicine and law so you can be empowered with facts to protect your rights, take care of your health, and safeguard your future.&nbsp;Visit AFLDS.org Media Contact&nbsp;Lisa Alexander, Executive Director |&nbsp;<a href="mailto:Media@AFLDS.org">Media@AFLDS.org</a>

AFLDS Files SCOTUS Amici Brief in Sweeney v. UCHA

Strikes Down Colorado’s Counseling Censorship Law Restricting SpeechWashington, DC&nbsp;- April 1, 2026On March 31, 2026, the Supreme Court of the United States delivered an 8-1 <a href="https://res.cloudinary.com/aflds/image/upload/v1775067436/24_539_fd9g_Chiles_SCOTUS_Opinion_aaaf180c75.pdf?updated_at=2026-04-01T18:17:16.774Z" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">decision</a> in&nbsp;Chiles v. Salazar (24-539). Justice Neil M. Gorsuch delivered the opinion of the Court, joined by Chief Justice Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan, Kavanaugh, and Barrett. Justice Kagan filed the concurring opinion in which Sotomayor joined. Judge Jackson filed the dissenting opinion.&nbsp;Dr. Simone Gold and the AFLDS legal team filed two&nbsp;amici curiae briefs with the Supreme Court in support of Petitioner Kaley Chiles, who sued the Respondents over Colorado’s “Counseling Censorship Law.” This law violated her free speech rights by prohibiting licensed counselors from engaging in any conversation with minor patients that does not steer them in the direction of “gender-affirming care.” Last year, the Court&nbsp;<a href="https://aflds.org/about-us/press-releases/scotus-grants-writ-petition-in-chiles-v-salazar">granted</a> the Petitioner’s writ of certiorari and agreed to hear her case.&nbsp;Please read our&nbsp;<a href="https://res.cloudinary.com/aflds/image/upload/v1734471609/Chilesv_Salazar_AFLDS_Amici_Brief_d79921f9b2.pdf">first brief</a>&nbsp; and <a href="https://res.cloudinary.com/aflds/image/upload/v1775067436/20250606123203786_AFLDS_Chiles_Amici_Brief_6_5_2025_2d7eee30df.pdf?updated_at=2026-04-01T18:17:17.065Z" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">second brief</a>.&nbsp;The High Court held that Colorado’s law banning conversion therapy, as applied to Ms. Chiles’ talk therapy, regulates speech based on viewpoint and the lower courts failed to apply sufficiently rigorous First Amendment scrutiny.&nbsp;In delivering the opinion of the Court, Justice Gorsuch wrote, “The Constitution does not protect the right of some to speak freely; it protects the right of all. It safeguards not only popular ideas; it secures, even and especially, the right to voice dissenting views. Consistent with these principles, our precedents have expressly rejected the State and dissent’s notion that ‘professional speech’ represents some ‘separate category of speech’ subject to ‘diminished constitutional protection.’”The Court also rejected the argument that speech becomes “conduct” simply because it occurs in a professional setting, reaffirming that licensed professionals do not lose their First Amendment rights. Even Justices across ideological lines agreed the law was unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination, underscoring the fundamental nature of the First Amendment violation.AFLDS praises SCOTUS for rejecting the State of Colorado’s attempt to dictate what licensed professionals are allowed to say. The Constitution does not permit the government to enforce ideological conformity in the doctor-patient relationship.&nbsp;This is not care. It is the&nbsp;<a href="https://aflds.org/medical/mutilation">medical mutilation</a> of healthy children, and the government cannot silence professionals who refuse to participate in it.In a statement following this major victory, AFLDS attorney David Dalia stated,&nbsp;“We should all be grateful to the Supreme Court for rejecting Colorado’s so-called ‘conversion therapy’ law, which turned reality on its head. Colorado prohibited counselors from even discussing with a minor the possibility that he might be a boy, labeling that as ‘conversion therapy,’ while allowing counselors to encourage minors to attempt to change their sex. Statistically, the vast majority of minors will outgrow gender confusion. This is blatant viewpoint discrimination. Other states have passed similar laws. The Constitution does not allow the government to dictate what a licensed professional may say based on ideology. Colorado attempted to silence one side of a deeply contested medical and ethical issue while permitting the other. The Court correctly made clear that the First Amendment cannot be evaded by relabeling speech as ‘treatment.’ When the government allows one viewpoint and prohibits another, it crosses a constitutional line.”AFLDS Founder and President Dr. Simone Gold added, “Colorado’s law was an assault on our God-given liberties. By striking down this law, the Supreme Court affirmed our constitutionally protected right to free speech. The children of Colorado will be better protected against the radical agenda of the medical mutilation industry. The Supreme Court’s ruling is a tremendous First Amendment victory that will help safeguard the health and safety of our children for generations to come.”Stay tuned - We will keep you updated on our progress and efforts to end the medical mutilation of children.&nbsp;# # #About AFLDSWe are the Nation's independent authority on ethical and transparent standards in science, health, and human rights. We provide individuals with unbiased and accurate information from the world's top experts in medicine and law so you can be empowered with facts to protect your rights, take care of your health, and safeguard your future.&nbsp;Visit AFLDS.org Media Contact&nbsp;Lisa Alexander, Executive Director |&nbsp;<a href="mailto:Media@AFLDS.org">Media@AFLDS.org</a>

Supreme Court Delivers First Amendment Victory in Chiles v. Salazar

Opposes Forced Medical Mutilation Surgery for “Transgender” InmateSan Francisco, CA – March 31, 2026On March 25, 2026, Dr. Simone Gold and the AFLDS legal team filed an&nbsp;<a href="https://res.cloudinary.com/aflds/image/upload/v1774970613/AFLDS_Amici_Curiae_Brief_stamped_Wagoner_3_25_2026_d6763b89dd.pdf?updated_at=2026-03-31T15:23:33.672Z" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">amici curiae brief</a> with the U. S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in support of the Defendant-Appellant in&nbsp;Wagoner v. Winkelman (25-6813). The Plaintiff-Appellee is a biological male currently imprisoned in Wasilla, Alaska. The Defendant-Appellant, Jennifer Winkelman, is a state official responsible for overseeing correctional medical care. The <a href="https://res.cloudinary.com/aflds/image/upload/v1774970612/Opening_Brief_Appellant_3_18_2026_9e46244754.pdf?updated_at=2026-03-31T15:23:33.426Z" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">appeal</a> asks the Ninth Circuit to reverse a district court ruling that ordered the State of Alaska to provide the prisoner a vaginoplasty surgery—a complex, irreversible surgical intervention to create a pseudo-vagina.This case arises from a challenge to Alaska’s medical judgment after the state provided extensive treatment, including mental health care, allowing social transition, providing hormone therapy, and accommodations to the prisoner, but declined to authorize the irreversible vaginoplasty surgery based on medical and safety concerns.The lower court nevertheless ruled that failure to provide the surgery constituted “cruel and unusual punishment” because of “deliberate indifference” by Alaska under the Eighth Amendment, and issued an order compelling Winkelman to provide the procedure. This ruling raises a fundamental constitutional question: Does the Eighth Amendment require states to perform medically disputed, irreversible surgeries on inmates?America’s Frontline Doctors maintains that the answer is no.The Eighth Amendment prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. It does not require states to perform experimental or highly controversial medical procedures that lack clear consensus, carry significant risks, and impose lifelong medical burdens. As detailed in our&nbsp;amici curiae brief, this procedure involves permanent destruction of healthy tissue, requires intensive and continuous postoperative care, and presents serious complications that correctional systems may be unable to safely manage. Further, a vaginoplasty is not “care.” It is&nbsp;<a href="https://aflds.org/medical/mutilation">medical mutilation</a>.&nbsp;The district court itself acknowledged that medical opinion in this area remains unsettled and that evidence regarding the effectiveness of such surgeries is limited and disputed. Yet it believed it was bound by prior Ninth Circuit precedent to order the procedure anyway.If allowed to stand, this ruling would have sweeping consequences. It would open the door for courts to override medical judgment and force prison systems across the country to provide controversial procedures regardless of risk, feasibility, or evolving scientific evidence.AFLDS attorney David Dalia states,&nbsp; “This case lays bare a dangerous expansion of judicial authority into the practice of medicine. The Constitution does not require the State to perform irreversible, high-risk surgical procedures that remain medically disputed and demand lifelong care and compliance. It is not ‘cruel and unusual punishment’ for a state to avoid these consequences. The Eighth Amendment prohibits deliberate indifference, not differences in medical judgment. Here, Alaska provided extensive care and exercised reasoned clinical judgment. For a court to override that and compel a specific surgical intervention is not constitutional law, it is judicial overreach. If this ruling stands, it invites judges to practice medicine without a license, placing patient safety, physician independence, and institutional integrity at serious risk. It would also open the floodgates to litigation, drawing courts into individualized medical decision-making where they do not belong.”AFLDS Founder and President Dr. Simone Gold added, “This is the destruction of healthy human organs, and it violates the most basic principles of medicine. These procedures remove functioning anatomy, eliminate fertility, and leave patients with lifelong medical dependency and risk. This is not medically necessary care, and it is not compassionate. And yet, the court is demanding that a prison system carry it out, even though there is not even a surgeon in the state to perform this procedure. That alone shows how detached this ruling is from both medical reality and basic common sense. The government does not have the authority to compel physicians or institutions to carry out procedures that mutilate healthy tissue and fundamentally alter the human body in this way.”The Ninth Circuit now has an opportunity to reaffirm clear constitutional boundaries and ensure that courts do not mandate medical procedures that remain contested, high-risk, and beyond the practical capabilities of the institutions ordered to provide them.# # #About AFLDSWe are the Nation's independent authority on ethical and transparent standards in science, health, and human rights. We provide individuals with unbiased and accurate information from the world's top experts in medicine and law so you can be empowered with facts to protect your rights, take care of your health, and safeguard your future.&nbsp;Visit AFLDS.org Media Contact&nbsp;Lisa Alexander, Executive Director |&nbsp;<a href="mailto:Media@AFLDS.org">Media@AFLDS.org</a>

AFLDS Files Amici Curiae Brief in Wagoner v. Winkelman

Agreement Protects Free Speech from Federal Pressure on Social MediaWashington, D.C. — March 26, 2026A proposed <a href="https://res.cloudinary.com/aflds/image/upload/v1774539180/State_of_Missouri_et_al_v_Donald_J_Trump_et_al_477_1_Consent_Decree_Ex_A_3_24_2026_22_cv_01213_WDLA_1d898c7586.pdf?updated_at=2026-03-26T15:33:01.145Z" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">consent decree</a> has been filed in&nbsp;State of Missouri v. Biden (Civil Action No. 22-cv-1213), marking a major development in one of the most significant First Amendment cases in modern history.On March 24, 2026, the parties (both Plaintiffs and Defendants) jointly moved the Western District Court of Louisiana to enter a consent decree that would resolve this landmark case and impose enforceable limits on the government’s ability to pressure or coerce social media companies to censor protected speech.The original case was brought by the States of Missouri and Louisiana, along with individual Plaintiffs including highly credentialed physicians, against federal officials and agencies for orchestrating what courts have already recognized as a broad censorship operation targeting Americans’ speech on critical public issues. That operation included direct and sustained communication between federal agencies and social media companies, including requests, demands, and escalating pressure to suppress disfavored viewpoints.The Court is now being asked to approve a binding agreement that would govern federal conduct for years to come.If entered, the consent decree would prohibit the government from taking actions, formal or informal, directly or indirectly, to threaten social media companies with punishment, unless they remove, suppress, or reduce protected free speech, including through threats of regulatory or legal consequences. The agreement follows extensive discovery, issued by U.S. District Judge Terry A. Doughty, which showed that the federal government likely engaged in a coordinated campaign of censorship on a scale rarely seen in American history.&nbsp;These findings included examples of physicians and experts being silenced after speaking publicly during the COVID-19 pandemic. Judge Doughty even recognized that our instantly viral&nbsp;<a href="https://www.whitecoatsummit.com/">July 2020 White Coat Summit</a>, which was removed across major platforms within hours, was “censored” at the behest of Anthony Fauci. Judge Doughty called this government censorship scheme “the most massive attack against free speech in United States’ history.”America’s Frontline Doctors (AFLDS)&nbsp;<a href="https://aflds.org/about-us/press-releases/aflds-and-simone-gold-m-d-j-d-file-amici-curiae-brief-in-scotus-case">filed</a> two&nbsp;amici curiae briefs in support of the Plaintiffs, defending the fundamental right of physicians and citizens to speak openly without government interference. However, in June 2024, the Supreme Court&nbsp;<a href="https://aflds.org/about-us/press-releases/scotus-murthy-v-missouri-ruling-subverts-free-speech">failed</a> to protect Americans’ free speech and reversed the Fifth Circuit’s preliminary injunction against the rampant censorship by Biden officials, on the thin ground of “standing” - representing a dark day for free speech and civil liberties in our Nation.&nbsp;“This case lays bare an unconstitutional scheme in which Biden government officials used pressure and threats to force private companies to silence disfavored speech,” said AFLDS attorney David Dalia. “In doing so, they turned private platforms into instruments of government censorship. The First Amendment does not permit the government to coerce third parties to do what it is forbidden from doing itself. The unprecedented discovery in&nbsp;Missouri v. Biden revealed the arrogance of these government bureaucrats. They would berate, demand, shout at, bully and curse private company employees to remove legal free speech simply because they didn’t like what was being said. They disregarded the First Amendment. This great consent decree should finally put an end to these unconstitutional censorship actions by government officials.”AFLDS maintains that government officials may not coerce, strongarm, or threaten private social media companies to remove or suppress free speech with which they disagree, warning that such conduct strikes at the core of constitutional protections. We exposed this structure as a coordinated system of censorship, where government actors and private platforms aligned to control the flow of information while avoiding constitutional accountability.“The First Amendment is not just one right among many, it is the foundation that protects all the others,” said Dr. Simone Gold, Founder and President of America’s Frontline Doctors. “When the government pressures private companies to silence doctors, scientists, or citizens, it is not protecting the public. It is controlling what Americans are allowed to think, say, and hear. That is incompatible with a free society.”The consent decree, if approved, would remain in effect for ten years, creating a long-term check on federal overreach in the digital public square. This case represents a defining test of whether constitutional protections still apply in the modern era of government influence over private platforms.Stay tuned for further updates as the Court considers entry of the consent decree.# # #About AFLDSWe are the Nation's independent authority on ethical and transparent standards in science, health, and human rights. We provide individuals with unbiased and accurate information from the world's top experts in medicine and law so you can be empowered with facts to protect your rights, take care of your health, and safeguard your future.&nbsp;Visit AFLDS.org &nbsp;Media Contact&nbsp;Lisa Alexander, Executive Director |&nbsp;<a href="mailto:Media@AFLDS.org">Media@AFLDS.org</a>

Missouri v. Biden Settlement Signals Major Free Speech Victory

Urges Supreme Court to Reject State Laws That Deny Religious RightsWashington, DC - March 23, 2026On March 19, 2026, Dr. Simone Gold and the AFLDS legal team filed an&nbsp;<a href="https://res.cloudinary.com/aflds/image/upload/v1774282805/AFLDS_Braccia_amici_brief_a5097a1802.pdf?updated_at=2026-03-23T16:20:06.424Z" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">amici curiae brief</a> with the Supreme Court of the United States in support of the Petitioners in&nbsp;Braccia v. Northwell Health Systems (25-963). The Petitioners in this case are former healthcare workers in the state of New York. The Respondent is Northwell Health Systems. By submitting a petition for <a href="https://res.cloudinary.com/aflds/image/upload/v1774282805/20260209172225088_Braccia_v_Northwell_Petition_for_Cert_w_Appx_2_9_26_18a92b821a.pdf?updated_at=2026-03-23T16:20:06.277Z" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">writ of certiorari</a> to SCOTUS, the Petitioners are asking the High Court to reverse the decision of the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals.In 2021, New York imposed a COVID-19 vaccine mandate on healthcare workers in the state and prohibited all religious exemptions. Northwell Health Systems enforced that mandate, refused to consider religious accommodation requests, and terminated the Petitioners after they declined the injections based on sincerely held religious beliefs.These were frontline healthcare workers who were forced to choose between their faith and their careers, and many lost everything.The Petitioners sued under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which requires employers to accommodate religious beliefs unless doing so creates an undue hardship. Instead of applying that standard, the lower courts ruled that complying with federal law would itself be an “undue hardship” because it would conflict with state law.That ruling turns the Constitution upside down.The question now before the Supreme Court is clear:&nbsp;Can a state override federal civil rights protections and erase religious accommodations entirely?America’s Frontline Doctors maintains that the answer is no. The Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution makes clear that federal law takes precedence over conflicting state laws. As outlined in the petition, allowing states to prohibit religious accommodations effectively nullifies the Constitution, Title VII, and invites widespread religious discrimination.If allowed to stand, the lower court rulings would give states a roadmap to eliminate religious protections in the workplace altogether. Any state could impose a mandate, prohibit accommodations, and employers would be free to comply, even when doing so violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution as well as federal statutory law.As detailed in our&nbsp;amici curiae brief, coercive medical mandates imposed under threat of job loss violate informed consent and fundamental constitutional protections. Individuals have a well-established right to refuse medical treatment, and that right cannot be overridden by government pressure or employer policy. Further, overwhelming evidence shows that the experimental COVID shots are not “safe” or “effective” nor do they prevent infection or transmission. Even the CDC’s own reporting system, VAERS, has documented millions of adverse reactions and hospitalizations attributable to these dangerous injections.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;AFLDS attorney David Dalia states,&nbsp;“This case exposes a fundamental breakdown in the rule of law. Federal civil rights protections guaranteed by the United States Constitution and by federal statutory laws such as Title VII cannot be erased by state mandates. The Second Circuit’s decision allows exactly that, creating a roadmap for employers to deny religious accommodations whenever it is politically convenient. Our rule of law demands that the Constitution and federal laws reign supreme over any state laws to the contrary in this area. The Supreme Court must intervene.”AFLDS Founder and President Dr. Simone Gold added,&nbsp;“These healthcare workers did everything right. They acted in accordance with their faith and their conscience, and they were punished for it. This case is about restoring constitutional protections, defending informed consent, and ensuring that no American is forced into a medical procedure under threat of losing their career.”Supporting these vital cases is critical to the mission of America’s Frontline Doctors. Please read our press releases for&nbsp;<a href="https://aflds.org/about-us/press-releases/supreme-court-intensifies-review-of-vaccine-mandates">Does v. Hochul</a>,&nbsp;<a href="https://aflds.org/about-us/press-releases/aflds-files-amici-curiae-brief-in-sweeney-v-ucha">Sweeney v. UCHA</a>,&nbsp;<a href="https://aflds.org/about-us/press-releases/aflds-urges-supreme-court-to-hear-landmark-medical-freedom-case">Pearson v. Shriners</a>, and related cases to learn more.Stay tuned - We will keep you updated on the status of this case and our legal efforts to vindicate all those harmed by COVID mandates.# # #About AFLDSWe are the Nation's independent authority on ethical and transparent standards in science, health, and human rights. We provide individuals with unbiased and accurate information from the world's top experts in medicine and law so you can be empowered with facts to protect your rights, take care of your health, and safeguard your future.&nbsp;Visit AFLDS.org Media Contact&nbsp;Lisa Alexander, Executive Director |&nbsp;<a href="mailto:Media@AFLDS.org">Media@AFLDS.org</a>

AFLDS Files Amici Curiae Brief in Braccia v. Northwell Health Systems

Parents Cannot Be Excluded From Decisions About Their Own ChildrenSan Francisco, CA — March 16, 2026On March 13, 2026, Dr. Simone Gold and the AFLDS legal team filed an&nbsp;<a href="https://res.cloudinary.com/aflds/image/upload/v1773694681/Regino_AFLDS_Amici_Brief_stamped_3_13_2026_26_475_ad7747ede4.pdf?updated_at=2026-03-16T20:58:02.007Z" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">amici curiae brief</a> with the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in support of the Plaintiff-Appellant in&nbsp;Regino v. Blake (26-475), urging the Court to reverse the district court’s dismissal and restore constitutional protections for parents whose children are secretly “socially transitioned” at school without their knowledge or consent.This case exposes the real consequences of school policies that deliberately exclude parents from critical decisions affecting their children. California parent, Aurora Regino, discovered that her eleven-year-old daughter had been socially transitioned at school after expressing emotional distress to a counselor. School officials changed the child’s name and pronouns and instructed staff to treat her as a boy, while concealing the attempted transition from her mother.The Chico Unified School District’s Parental Secrecy Policy requires district personnel to socially transition a student (who could be as young as four) upon that student’s request, even over parental objection. Unless the student affirmatively authorizes parental disclosure, the Policy prohibits personnel from informing the parents. District personnel must also conceal these transitions from parents, even if parents directly ask whether such changes are taking place. The District is NOT required to obtain parental consent, nor do parents have the right to override the District’s decision to socially transition their child.&nbsp;The district court dismissed the case, allowing the policy to remain in effect. The <a href="https://res.cloudinary.com/aflds/image/upload/v1773694681/Filed_Appellate_Brief_3d02a07ac6.pdf?updated_at=2026-03-16T20:58:02.027Z" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">appeal</a> now before the Ninth Circuit asks whether parents retain the constitutional right to direct the upbringing and care of their children, including the right to be informed when government institutions initiate identity-altering psychological interventions.This case arises amid a growing number of lawsuits challenging school policies that exclude parents from decisions affecting their children’s identity and medical trajectory. The Supreme Court has already addressed related parental rights issues in&nbsp;<a href="https://aflds.org/about-us/press-releases/scotus-delivers-landmark-ruling-in-mahmoud-v-taylor">Mahmoud v. Taylor</a>, and recently sided with parents in&nbsp;<a href="https://aflds.org/about-us/press-releases/supreme-court-sides-with-parents-in-mirabelli-v-bonta">Mirabelli v. Bonta</a>, reinforcing the constitutional principle that government institutions cannot sever parents from their role as the primary decision-makers in their children’s lives.&nbsp;Regino v. Blake presents the same constitutional conflict now before the Ninth Circuit.America’s Frontline Doctors maintains the position that secret social “transitions” in schools are not neutral accommodations. As documented in our&nbsp;amici curiae brief, this is a critical step in a broader ideological process that conditions children to reject biological reality and normalizes a trajectory that leads to puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, irreversible sterilization, permanent loss of sexual function, lifelong medical dependency, and surgical mutilation of healthy bodies. Parents have the fundamental right and duty to intervene before their children are placed on that path.AFLDS attorney David Dalia said, “This case presents a deeply troubling constitutional violation exposing unwarranted governmental interference into the family. Government officials have no lawful authority to secretly insert themselves between parents and their children, to conceal critical information from families, or to substitute their own ideological judgments for the decisions of a fit parent. The Constitution protects the fundamental right and duty of parents to protect their children from harm, and that authority cannot be usurped by public school bureaucracies.”AFLDS Founder and President Dr. Simone Gold added, “Children are not wards of the state. They belong to their parents. When schools hide critical information from families and secretly participate in social ‘transitions,’ they undermine the most basic structure of society. Parents have the absolute right and obligation to protect their children from irreversible harm.”This case carries national significance. Alongside&nbsp;<a href="https://aflds.org/about-us/press-releases/aflds-files-brief-in-lavigne-v-great-salt-bay-community-school-board">Lavigne v. Great Salt Bay</a>,&nbsp;<a href="https://aflds.org/about-us/press-releases/aflds-files-amici-curiae-brief-in-foote-v-ludlow-school-committee">Foote v. Ludlow</a>, and other pending parental rights cases,&nbsp;Regino v. Blake will help determine whether parents retain the constitutional authority to raise and protect their children, or whether government institutions may assume that role under the guise of education and privacy.Stay tuned as AFLDS continues to fight nationwide to defend parental rights, protect children, and restrain unlawful government usurpation.# # #About AFLDSWe are the Nation's independent authority on ethical and transparent standards in science, health, and human rights. We provide individuals with unbiased and accurate information from the world's top experts in medicine and law so you can be empowered with facts to protect your rights, take care of your health, and safeguard your future.&nbsp;Visit AFLDS.org Media Contact&nbsp;Lisa Alexander, Executive Director |&nbsp;<a href="mailto:Media@AFLDS.org">Media@AFLDS.org</a>

AFLDS Files Ninth Circuit Amici Curiae Brief in Regino v. Blake

SCOTUS Rules California Likely Violated Parents’ Constitutional RightsWashington, DC – March 5, 2026On March 2, 2026, the Supreme Court of the United States granted emergency relief in&nbsp;<a href="https://americasfrontlinedoctors.org/about-us/press-releases/aflds-files-supreme-court-amici-curiae-brief-in-mirabelli-v-bonta">Mirabelli v. Bonta (25A810)</a>, vacating the Ninth Circuit’s stay of a district court permanent injunction against California policies requiring schools to conceal a child’s asserted transgender status from parents and to actively facilitate a child’s “social transition” over parental objections.The Court <a href="https://res.cloudinary.com/aflds/image/upload/v1772729466/25a810_b97d_6f202a60e1.pdf?updated_at=2026-03-05T16:51:07.291Z" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">granted</a> the application to vacate the stay as to the parent plaintiffs, concluding they are likely to succeed on the merits of their constitutional claims.At issue are California policies allowing schools to socially transition children while withholding that information from their parents. Teachers are required to use one name and set of pronouns at school and another when communicating with parents.These policies have inflicted devastating harm on children and families. In one case, the parents of a junior-high girl were unaware that their daughter was being treated as a male at school for nearly a year. They learned the truth only after she attempted suicide and was hospitalized.After extensive discovery and a fully developed factual record, the district court granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs and entered a permanent injunction blocking the policy. The Ninth Circuit later stayed that injunction pending appeal—allowing the state’s regime of secrecy and coercion to continue.The Supreme Court has now vacated the stay as it applies to the parents.In its opinion, the Court concluded that California’s policies likely violate both the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.On the First Amendment, the Court held that California’s “unconsented facilitation of a child’s gender transition” is an even greater intrusion on parental rights than the government action struck down in last year’s&nbsp;<a href="https://americasfrontlinedoctors.org/about-us/press-releases/scotus-delivers-landmark-ruling-in-mahmoud-v-taylor">Mahmoud v. Taylor</a>, a case AFLDS also supported. The Court also reaffirmed a core constitutional principle: parents, not the State, hold primary authority over “the upbringing and education of children,” including the right not to be “shut out of participation in decisions regarding their children’s mental health.”America’s Frontline Doctors maintains that secret social “transitions” are not neutral accommodations. As documented in our&nbsp;<a href="https://res.cloudinary.com/aflds/image/upload/v1769114216/AFD_Mirabelli_Amici_Brief_448c86d81e.pdf?updated_at=2026-01-22T20:36:57.140Z">amici curiae brief</a> and exposed in the AFLDS documentary&nbsp;<a href="https://americasfrontlinedoctors.org/whatisadoctor">What Is a Doctor?</a>,&nbsp;this practice is a major step in the ideological process that conditions children to reject biological reality and sets them on a path toward puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, irreversible sterilization, permanent loss of sexual function, lifelong medical dependency, and surgical mutilation of healthy bodies.AFLDS attorney David Dalia said, “The entire Nation should be very grateful to the Supreme Court in&nbsp;Mirabelli for reinstating the well-founded injunction against this dangerous California ‘Parental Exclusion’ school policy. That policy allowed schools to secretly push vulnerable children to adopt a false identity as the opposite sex without their parents’ knowledge or consent, and even over parental objections. It went so far as to require teachers to deceive parents in order to conceal these actions. Such a policy tramples fundamental constitutional parental rights.Many Americans remain unaware that thousands of public schools have adopted similar policies, encouraging children to present themselves as the opposite sex through different names, pronouns, and cross-dressing while deliberately excluding parents from these decisions. The Court’s ruling restores constitutional limits on government authority and will have nationwide implications as more than 6,000 schools have adopted comparable ‘secret transition’ policies and over 40 legal challenges are now underway to end these unconstitutional practices.”AFLDS Founder and President Dr. Simone Gold added,&nbsp; “Children are not wards of the state. They belong to their parents. Schools have no authority to deceive families or replace parental judgment with ideological mandates. This ruling is an important victory, but we will not stop. Frontline Doctors will continue supporting these cases with the unique medical perspective as the only physician-led organization appearing before the courts on these issues until the&nbsp;<a href="https://aflds.org/medical/mutilation">medical mutilation</a>&nbsp;of children is stopped in this country, once and for all.”Alongside&nbsp;<a href="https://americasfrontlinedoctors.org/about-us/press-releases/aflds-files-amici-curiae-brief-in-foote-v-ludlow-school-committee">Foote v. Ludlow School Committee</a>, currently pending before the Supreme Court,&nbsp;<a href="https://americasfrontlinedoctors.org/about-us/press-releases/aflds-files-supreme-court-amici-curiae-brief-in-mirabelli-v-bonta">Mirabelli v. Bonta</a> helps clarify whether parents retain the constitutional authority to raise and protect their children, or whether the state may claim that authority under the guise of education and privacy.# # #About AFLDSWe are the Nation's independent authority on ethical and transparent standards in science, health, and human rights. We provide individuals with unbiased and accurate information from the world's top experts in medicine and law so you can be empowered with facts to protect your rights, take care of your health, and safeguard your future.&nbsp;Visit AFLDS.org Media Contact&nbsp;Lisa Alexander, Executive Director |&nbsp;<a href="mailto:Media@AFLDS.org">Media@AFLDS.org</a>

Supreme Court Sides With Parents in Mirabelli v. Bonta

Public Schools Cannot Conceal Gender Transition From ParentsWashington, DC&nbsp;- February 24, 2026On February 23, 2026, Dr. Simone Gold and the AFLDS legal team filed an&nbsp;<a href="https://res.cloudinary.com/aflds/image/upload/v1771950315/AFD_Lavigne_Amici_Brief_1_664dff931b.pdf?updated_at=2026-02-24T16:25:16.102Z" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">amici curiae brief</a> in support of Petitioner Amber Lavigne in&nbsp;Lavigne v. Great Salt Bay Community School Board (25-759), urging the United States Supreme Court to grant <a href="https://res.cloudinary.com/aflds/image/upload/v1771950315/20251222174317126_Cert_Petition_fbb09f0dcd.pdf?updated_at=2026-02-24T16:25:16.924Z" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">certiorari</a> and reverse the First Circuit’s decision allowing public school officials in Maine to conceal critical information from parents and socially transition their children without parental knowledge or consent.This case goes to the heart of a fundamental liberty protected by the Constitution: the right of parents to direct the upbringing, care, and education of their own children. That right becomes meaningless when the state acts in secrecy.Amber Lavigne is suing the Great Salt Bay Community School Board (Respondent) after school officials provided her 13-year-old daughter with a chest binder and socially transitioned the child at school by using a different name and pronouns, all without parental notice or consent. The First Circuit dismissed her claims at the pleading stage, declining to address whether parents have a constitutional right to be informed when schools affirmatively facilitate a child’s attempt at gender transition.AFLDS is asking the Supreme Court to grant review, correct the First Circuit’s misapplication of federal pleading standards, and reaffirm that the Constitution protects the fundamental right of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children.The Constitution does not permit government officials to step into the parental role in secret.This case presents a direct conflict between parents and government officials who assume authority over a child’s mental and physical well-being. The school did not merely adopt classroom language or curricular content. It provided a medical device designed to compress a young girl’s breasts and initiated a social transition process while intentionally withholding that information from her mother.For over a century, the Supreme Court has recognized that the interest of parents in the care, custody, and control of their children is among the oldest fundamental liberty interests protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. That protection becomes pointless if schools can socially transition a child, facilitate breast binding, and conceal those actions.Our&nbsp;amici curiae brief explains that a social “transition” is not a neutral accommodation. It is the first step on a treacherous treadmill that inexorably progresses toward puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, sterilization, permanent loss of sexual function, lifelong medical dependency, and surgical mutilation of healthy bodies. Secret affirmation by state actors accelerates that pathway while stripping parents of their ability to intervene.AFLDS attorney David Dalia stated, “This case forces the Court to confront a simple constitutional question: can public officials deliberately conceal from a mother the school’s decision to secretly attempt to ‘socially transition’ her daughter into a son? The First Circuit avoided that question by dismissing the case at the pleading stage, without any trial. But a school totally obliterates fundamental parental rights when the school deliberately withholds such crucially important information from that parent about their child. The judiciary has a duty to restrain government actors who exceed their lawful authority, especially when these fundamental parental rights are at stake.”AFLDS Founder and President Dr. Simone Gold added, “When government employees secretly bind a young girl’s chest and attempt to socially transition her, they are not supporting a child. They are displacing a parent. That is a direct assault on the family and a blatant usurpation of constitutional authority. The state has no power to insert itself between a fit parent and her child in matters that can lead to sterilization, lifelong medical dependency, and irreversible harm. In America, children belong to their parents, not to the government.”This case carries national significance. Alongside&nbsp;<a href="https://aflds.org/about-us/press-releases/scotus-grants-writ-petition-in-chiles-v-salazar">Chiles v. Salazar</a>,&nbsp;<a href="https://aflds.org/about-us/press-releases/aflds-files-amici-curiae-brief-in-foote-v-ludlow-school-committee">Foote v. Ludlow School Committee</a>,&nbsp;<a href="https://aflds.org/about-us/press-releases/aflds-files-supreme-court-amici-curiae-brief-in-mirabelli-v-bonta">Mirabelli v. Bonta</a>, and&nbsp;<a href="https://aflds.org/about-us/press-releases/aflds-files-amici-curiae-brief-in-international-partners-v-ferguson">International Partners for Ethical Care, Inc. v. Ferguson</a>, and other parental rights cases pending across the country,&nbsp;Lavigne will help determine whether public schools may conceal gender “transition” from parents or whether the Constitution still recognizes that mothers and fathers, not bureaucrats, are responsible for their children.Stay tuned as AFLDS continues to defend parental rights, protect children from&nbsp;<a href="https://aflds.org/medical/mutilation">medical mutilation</a>, and restrain unlawful government usurpation nationwide.# # #About AFLDSWe are the Nation's independent authority on ethical and transparent standards in science, health, and human rights. We provide individuals with unbiased and accurate information from the world's top experts in medicine and law so you can be empowered with facts to protect your rights, take care of your health, and safeguard your future.&nbsp;Visit AFLDS.orgMedia Contact&nbsp;Lisa Alexander, Communications Director |&nbsp;<a href="mailto:Media@AFLDS.org">Media@AFLDS.org</a>

AFLDS Files Brief in Lavigne v. Great Salt Bay Community School Board

Fit Parents Must Not Be Branded Unfit for Rejecting Gender IdeologyWashington, DC&nbsp;- February 18, 2026On February 17, 2026, Dr. Simone Gold and the AFLDS legal team filed an&nbsp;<a href="https://res.cloudinary.com/aflds/image/upload/v1771430786/AFD_Intl_Partners_Amici_Brief_b84f7f406d.pdf?updated_at=2026-02-18T16:06:27.382Z" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">amici curiae brief</a> with the Supreme Court of the United States in support of the Petitioners in&nbsp;International Partners for Ethical Care, Inc. v. Ferguson (25-840), urging the Court to grant <a href="https://res.cloudinary.com/aflds/image/upload/v1771430788/20260113192137323_Petition_for_Cert_w_Appx_1_13_26_5822c1f693.pdf?updated_at=2026-02-18T16:06:30.203Z" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">certiorari</a> and reverse the Ninth Circuit’s decision denying parents access to the courts while Washington State displaces them from medical decision-making regarding their own gender-confused children.This case exposes the real-world consequences of Washington State’s 2023 Family Reconciliation Act amendments. Under state law, if a minor runs away and claims to be seeking “gender-affirming treatment,” the state’s Department of Children, Youth, and Family Services (DCYF) may withhold the child’s location and condition from parents, delay reunification, and facilitate medical interventions without parental notice or consent. Parents who refuse to affirm gender confusion are treated as presumptively unfit, even in the absence of any due process of law and any finding of parental abuse or neglect.The harms are severe and immediate. The Petitioners are not policy advocates observing from a distance. They are mothers and fathers raising children struggling with gender confusion, including one child who has already run away before. These parents do not affirm gender ideology. They seek to raise their children in accordance with biological reality. They now live under a legal regime that incentivizes vulnerable children to flee, empowers the state to withhold critical information, and clears a path for interventions that can permanently alter a child’s body and future. Yet when these parents sought judicial protection before irreversible harm occurs, both lower courts dismissed their case.This case centers on a foundational constitutional principle: the interest of parents in the care, custody, and control of their children is among the oldest fundamental liberty interests recognized by the Supreme Court. That principle is meaningless if parents must wait until their child has been sterilized, surgically altered, or psychologically cemented into an irreversible pathway before they may seek relief.America’s Frontline Doctors maintains the position that so-called “gender-affirming” interventions are not neutral health care. As documented in our&nbsp;amici curiae brief, secret behavioral affirmation is not a harmless accommodation. It is the first step in an ideological process that conditions children to reject biological reality and normalizes a trajectory toward puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, irreversible sterilization, permanent loss of sexual function, lifelong medical dependency, and surgical mutilation of healthy bodies. Parents have the fundamental right and duty to intervene before their children are placed on that path.AFLDS attorney David Dalia said, “This case presents a direct and deliberate usurpation of the parental role. Washington’s law does not merely intrude upon parental authority. It obliterates it. Standing doctrine cannot be manipulated to shield that usurpation from constitutional review. When parents are the very target of a statute, they must be allowed into court to defend their families.”AFLDS Founder and President Dr. Simone Gold added, “Unlike totalitarian countries, the law in America protects parents from acting as though children are wards of the state. They belong to their parents. Gender ideology denies biologic reality and demands obedience to a false construct over truth. The government does not have the authority to brand fit parents as unfit simply because they refuse to participate in&nbsp;<a href="https://aflds.org/medical/mutilation">medical mutilation</a>. Parents answer for their children before God and before the law, not before bureaucrats. The Constitution protects families, not ideology.”This case carries national significance. Alongside&nbsp;<a href="https://aflds.org/about-us/press-releases/aflds-files-supreme-court-amici-curiae-brief-in-mirabelli-v-bonta">Mirabelli v. Bonta</a>,&nbsp;<a href="https://aflds.org/about-us/press-releases/aflds-files-amici-curiae-brief-in-foote-v-ludlow-school-committee">Foote v. Ludlow School Committee</a>, and other pending parental rights cases,&nbsp;International Partners v. Ferguson will help determine whether parents retain the constitutional authority to raise and protect their children, or whether states may evade judicial review while asserting control over children under the guise of “protected health care.”Stay tuned as AFLDS continues to fight nationwide to defend parental rights, protect children, and restrain unlawful government usurpation.# # #About AFLDSWe are the Nation's independent authority on ethical and transparent standards in science, health, and human rights. We provide individuals with unbiased and accurate information from the world's top experts in medicine and law so you can be empowered with facts to protect your rights, take care of your health, and safeguard your future.&nbsp;Visit AFLDS.org Media Contact&nbsp;Lisa Alexander, Communications Director |&nbsp;<a href="mailto:Media@AFLDS.org">Media@AFLDS.org</a>

AFLDS Files Amici Curiae Brief in International Partners v. Ferguson

AFLDS Urges Supreme Court Review of Gain-of-Function AccountabilityWashington, DC&nbsp;- January 23, 2026On January 21, 2026, Dr. Simone Gold and the AFLDS legal team filed an&nbsp;<a href="https://res.cloudinary.com/aflds/image/upload/v1769188384/AFD_Heath_amicus_brief_d75618d5a1.pdf?updated_at=2026-01-23T17:13:04.965Z" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">amici curiae brief</a> with the United States Supreme Court in support of the Petitioner in&nbsp;Heath v. EcoHealth Alliance, Inc. (25-740). <a href="https://res.cloudinary.com/aflds/image/upload/v1769188384/Heath_Merged_Petition_6ef2d9e84d.pdf?updated_at=2026-01-23T17:13:04.986Z" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">The Petition for a Writ of Certiorari</a> asks the Court to review a Second Circuit decision that prevented a widow from pursuing wrongful death claims arising from her husband’s death during the COVID-19 pandemic.The Petitioner, Susan Heath, is the proposed representative of the estate of her late husband, Henry A. Hurst III, who died from COVID-19 in 2021. Heath alleges that EcoHealth Alliance knowingly used federal grant funds to engage in gain-of-function research on abnormally dangerous SARS viruses, including experimentation that is expected to increase the transmissibility and/or virulence of pathogens, and that this work was conducted through a foreign laboratory with documented biosafety failures.According to the petition, EcoHealth Alliance continued to outsource this extremely dangerous gain-of-function research to the Wuhan Institute of Virology in China after similar gain-of-function work had been paused domestically due to safety concerns. Heath alleges that EcoHealth subcontracted this work to the Wuhan Institute despite known biosafety deficiencies, failed to exercise meaningful oversight, and did not adequately report or halt dangerous experiments. The petition further alleges that in the course of this research, Wuhan Institute&nbsp; released the novel SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19), which rapidly spread around the world and ultimately claimed the life of Heath’s husband.Rather than allowing these claims to be examined by a jury, the lower courts dismissed the case at the pleading stage, declined to certify novel questions of state tort law, and effectively insulated EcoHealth Alliance from negligence and strict-liability claims involving ultrahazardous activity.The petition now before the Supreme Court presents a fundamental question of accountability: whether private entities that engage in exceptionally dangerous biological research may be shielded from liability by judicial fiat, or whether families harmed by that research retain the constitutional right to be heard.America’s Frontline Doctors maintains that gain-of-function research has long been recognized as posing extraordinary risks to public health and human life. AFLDS further contends that denying families access to courts in cases involving mass harms violates the First, Fifth, and Seventh Amendments and removes a critical safeguard against reckless scientific conduct.“Courts do not have the authority to prevent accountability by granting undeserved ‘judicial immunity’ to bad actors who harm real people. Wrongfully dismissing important cases for unimportant reasons deprives injured people of their fundamental rights to petition the courts for redress of their grievances,” said AFLDS attorney David Dalia. “Where there is a right, there is a remedy. This is especially important where extremely dangerous gain-of-function research or other ultrahazardous activities are involved. When judges deny litigants the opportunity to have juries decide whether ultrahazardous activities caused wrongful deaths, they are violating the Constitution and endangering public health.”“This case asks whether our courts will tolerate dangerous scientific experimentation without accountability, a risk AFLDS has warned about for years,” said Dr. Simone Gold. “A man lost his life, and a family was denied even a hearing. That is not justice. When lethal research is insulated from scrutiny, the rule of law collapses and the public bears the cost.”AFLDS maintains that Supreme Court review is urgently needed to restore the right to a jury trial, reaffirm state authority over public health policy, and ensure that no institution or corporation is placed above the law when human lives are at stake.Stay tuned for further updates on this case and other AFLDS legal initiatives defending medical freedom.# # #About AFLDSWe are the Nation's independent authority on ethical and transparent standards in science, health, and human rights. We provide individuals with unbiased and accurate information from the world's top experts in medicine and law so you can be empowered with facts to protect your rights, take care of your health, and safeguard your future.&nbsp;Visit AFLDS.org Media Contact&nbsp;Lisa Alexander, Communications Director |&nbsp;<a href="mailto:Media@AFLDS.org">Media@AFLDS.org</a>

AFLDS Supports Supreme Court Petition in Heath v. EcoHealth Alliance

Children Belong to Their Parents, Not the StateWashington, DC&nbsp;- January 22, 2026On January 21, 2026, Dr. Simone Gold and the AFLDS legal team filed an&nbsp;<a href="https://res.cloudinary.com/aflds/image/upload/v1769114216/AFD_Mirabelli_Amici_Brief_448c86d81e.pdf?updated_at=2026-01-22T20:36:57.140Z" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">amici curiae brief</a> with the Supreme Court of the United States in support of the Applicants in&nbsp;Mirabelli v. Bonta (25A810), urging the Court to vacate the Ninth Circuit’s stay order and reinstate a permanent injunction protecting parents and children from unlawful state attempts to secretly “transition” the biological sex of school children without parental knowledge or consent.This <a href="https://res.cloudinary.com/aflds/image/upload/v1769114218/20260108173157813_Emergency_Appl_for_Stay_of_Interlocutory_Order_Mirabelli_v_Bonta_1b883b1655.pdf?updated_at=2026-01-22T20:36:58.998Z" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">case</a> exposes the real-world consequences of California’s parental exclusion policies. Under state mandate, public schools are&nbsp;required to hide a child’s asserted transgender status from parents, including religious parents, and to actively facilitate a child’s “social transition” over parental objections, even after the Supreme Court’s decision in&nbsp;<a href="https://aflds.org/about-us/press-releases/scotus-delivers-landmark-ruling-in-mahmoud-v-taylor">Mahmoud v. Taylor</a>.&nbsp;&nbsp;The harms have been severe. Applicants John and Jane Poe were not told that their junior-high daughter was being treated as a male at school for most of a year. Only after she attempted suicide did they learn the truth. Unable to afford private school, this devout Catholic family transferred her to another public school and expressly requested notice regarding her gender expression and the use of her legal name and biological pronouns. The school refused, citing state policy. To this day, the Poes remain excluded from critical information about their daughter.Teachers have also been forced into impossible positions. Two Christian middle school teachers, Applicants Elizabeth Mirabelli and Lori Ann West, were presented with a list of seven students being transitioned, six of whose parents were unaware. The school required them to use one set of names and pronouns in class and another when communicating with parents. Believing this constituted systematic deception, they sought relief and obtained a preliminary injunction protecting truthful communication. As a result of the Ninth Circuit’s stay, those protections have been stripped away, and teachers across California are once again being forced to lie to parents.This case centers on a foundational constitutional principle: children belong to their parents, not the state. California’s policies substitute government judgment for parental authority, compel deception, and sever parents from their role as primary protectors of their children’s welfare. After extensive discovery and a fully developed factual record, the district court issued a permanent injunction blocking these practices. The Ninth Circuit’s stay of the permanent injunction was issued in only two days, one of which was Christmas, precluding any meaningful review, and allowed the state’s regime of secrecy and coercion to resume.America’s Frontline Doctors maintains the position that secret social “transitions” in schools are not neutral accommodations. As documented in our&nbsp;amici curiae brief, this is a critical step in a broader ideological process that conditions children to reject biological reality and normalizes a trajectory that leads to puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, irreversible sterilization, permanent loss of sexual function, lifelong medical dependency, and surgical mutilation of healthy bodies. Parents have the fundamental right and duty to intervene before their children are placed on that path.AFLDS attorney David Dalia said, “This case presents the same constitutional injury now before the Supreme Court in&nbsp;<a href="https://aflds.org/about-us/press-releases/aflds-files-amici-curiae-brief-in-foote-v-ludlow-school-committee">Foote v. Ludlow School Committee</a>&nbsp;(25-77), which is currently pending review. In both cases, schools excluded parents, compelled deception, and asserted authority over children that the Constitution reserves to families. The state has no lawful power to usurp the parental role and override fit parents.”AFLDS Founder and President Dr. Simone Gold added, “Children are not wards of the state. They belong to their parents. Gender ideology denies biological reality and overrides parental authority. Parents have an absolute right and obligation to protect their children from irreversible harm, and no school or bureaucrat has the authority to interfere.”This case carries national significance. Alongside&nbsp;Foote v. Ludlow,&nbsp;Mirabelli v. Bonta will help determine whether parents retain the constitutional authority to raise and protect their children, or whether the state may claim that authority under the guise of education and privacy.Stay tuned as AFLDS continues to fight nationwide to defend parental rights, protect children, and restrain unlawful government usurpation.# # #About AFLDSWe are the Nation's independent authority on ethical and transparent standards in science, health, and human rights. We provide individuals with unbiased and accurate information from the world's top experts in medicine and law so you can be empowered with facts to protect your rights, take care of your health, and safeguard your future.&nbsp;Visit AFLDS.org Media Contact&nbsp;Lisa Alexander, Communications Director |&nbsp;<a href="mailto:Media@AFLDS.org">Media@AFLDS.org</a>

AFLDS Files Supreme Court Amici Curiae Brief in Mirabelli v. Bonta

Stockton v. Brown Challenges State Punishment of Protected Medical SpeechWashington, DC&nbsp;- December 29, 2025On December 23, 2025, Dr. Simone Gold and the AFLDS legal team filed an&nbsp;<a href="https://res.cloudinary.com/aflds/image/upload/v1767103417/AFLDS_Stockton_amici_brief_final_12_23_2025_95b8ab068c.pdf?updated_at=2025-12-30T14:03:41.347Z" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">amici curiae brief</a> with the United States Supreme Court in&nbsp;Stockton v. Brown (25-606), urging the Court to reverse a Ninth Circuit decision that allows Washington State to punish physicians for constitutionally protected medical speech.The case involves Washington State physicians <a href="https://res.cloudinary.com/aflds/image/upload/v1767103414/20251120132158509_STOCKTON_Petition_for_a_Writ_of_Certiorari_b63508708f.pdf?updated_at=2025-12-30T14:03:34.873Z" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">challenging</a> the actions of state officials who enforced a sweeping “misinformation enforcement” policy that threatens doctors with disciplinary action if they depart from government-approved COVID-19 narratives.In its brief, AFLDS asks the Supreme Court to reject coercive medical censorship, reaffirm that physicians do not forfeit their First Amendment rights as a condition of licensure, and restore constitutional protection to the doctor-patient relationship.Washington’s enforcement scheme operates by compelling physicians to repeat state-endorsed viewpoints while chilling or prohibiting discussion of safer treatment options, medical risks, and alternative therapies. AFLDS argues this regime constitutes compelled speech and viewpoint discrimination in direct violation of the First Amendment and the Supreme Court’s holding in&nbsp;National Institute of Family &amp; Life Advocates v. Becerra.The brief further notes that the Washington Court of Appeals has already held that the state’s “misinformation enforcement” policy is unconstitutional, failing to serve any compelling state interest. Despite that ruling, the Ninth Circuit declined to intervene, leaving physicians exposed to continued threats of investigation and discipline.AFLDS asserts that&nbsp;Stockton fits squarely within a growing national pattern of state medical boards usurping authority never granted to them by statute or the Constitution, transforming licensing power into a tool for political and ideological enforcement. In&nbsp;<a href="https://aflds.org/about-us/press-releases/aflds-files-amici-curiae-brief-in-kory-v-bonta">Kory v. Bonta</a>,&nbsp;<a href="https://aflds.org/about-us/press-releases/dr-simone-gold-files-federal-suit-against-california-medical-board">Gold v. California Medical Board</a>, and now&nbsp;Stockton v. Brown, licensing boards and state officials have attempted to weaponize regulatory power to police speech, punish dissent, and enforce government-approved medical narratives rather than regulate the practice of medicine or protect patients.The brief warns that allowing states to dictate what doctors may say to their patients destroys informed consent, violates core medical ethics, and places patient safety at risk. Medicine cannot be governed by political decree, and patients cannot make informed decisions when doctors are forced to withhold or distort information under threat of punishment.“Threatening physicians with discipline for refusing to parrot government-approved talking points is compelled speech, plain and simple, and medically very dangerous,” said AFLDS attorney David Dalia. “Medical boards are limited by statute and the Constitution. When they punish and censor speech instead of regulating medical practice, they usurp power they do not have, undermine informed consent, and violate the First Amendment.”Dr. Simone Gold, founder of AFLDS, emphasized the broader stakes of the case.&nbsp;“Medical boards exist to protect patients, not to punish dissent or expand their power beyond the law. A doctor’s duty is to the patient, not the state. When governments censor physicians, patients lose access to truth, informed consent becomes impossible, and lives are put at risk. This case is about preserving medical ethics, medical freedom, and the constitutional protections that safeguard both.”AFLDS urges the Supreme Court to grant review and resolve the growing conflict among federal courts, reaffirming that free speech protections extend fully to medical professionals and that the doctor-patient relationship must remain free from political control.Stay tuned - We will keep you updated on the status of this case and our efforts to protect the free speech rights of all Americans.# # #About AFLDSWe are the Nation's independent authority on ethical and transparent standards in science, health, and human rights. We provide individuals with unbiased and accurate information from the world's top experts in medicine and law so you can be empowered with facts to protect your rights, take care of your health, and safeguard your future.&nbsp;Visit AFLDS.org Media Contact&nbsp;Lisa Alexander, Communications Director |&nbsp;<a href="mailto:Media@AFLDS.org">Media@AFLDS.org</a>

AFLDS Urges Supreme Court to Defend Doctors Free Speech

Complaint Challenges Unconstitutional Misuse of Medical Licensing PowerSacramento, CA&nbsp;&nbsp;- December 9, 2025On December 5, 2025, Dr. Simone M. Gold, M.D., J.D., an emergency room physician and founder of America’s Frontline Doctors (AFLDS), filed a <a href="https://res.cloudinary.com/aflds/image/upload/v1765307400/CMB_Complaint_83bc9e33e6.pdf?updated_at=2025-12-09T19:10:01.154Z" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">First Amended Complaint</a> in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California against the Medical Board of California, its President Kristina Lawson, and former President Reji Varghese.The lawsuit challenges an unprecedented disciplinary campaign in which California regulators sought to revoke Dr. Gold’s medical license, not for patient harm or misconduct, but for constitutionally protected speech criticizing state COVID-19 policies and advocating for medical freedom.The filing alleges that the Medical Board of California engaged in viewpoint discrimination, selective enforcement, and denial of due process by weaponizing its licensing authority to punish Dr. Gold for public statements that conflicted with state-approved narratives.Dr. Gold was subjected to multiple investigations and a formal accusation despite the absence of any patient complaints and despite her unblemished professional record. The Board’s action rested solely on a misdemeanor trespass conviction unrelated to patient care, a basis for discipline that has never before been used in the Board’s 145-year history.In January 2025, the San Diego County Superior Court issued a&nbsp;<a href="https://aflds.org/about-us/press-releases/dr-gold-scores-another-legal-victory-over-cmb">Writ of Mandate</a> vacating the Medical Board’s disciplinary order. The court held that Dr. Gold’s conduct was not substantially related to the duties or qualifications of a physician and that the Board lacked statutory authority to impose any discipline. The court rejected key factual assertions advanced by the Board and awarded costs to Dr. Gold as the prevailing party.The complaint alleges that state officials acted in bad faith throughout the proceedings and ignored governing legal standards to advance a retaliatory objective. It highlights a highly unusual and unsolicited four-page letter sent by then-Medical Board President Kristina Lawson to the federal sentencing judge in Dr. Gold’s misdemeanor trespass case, despite Lawson having no role in the criminal proceedings. Identifying herself as the President of the California Medical Board, Lawson engaged in extensive ad hominem attacks against Dr. Gold, and the filing alleges this extraordinary intervention exposes retaliatory intent, personal animus, and a misuse of official power by the same official who later oversaw disciplinary action against Dr. Gold’s medical license.AFLDS maintains that state medical boards may not lawfully invent authority they do not possess, nor may they punish licensed professionals for engaging in protected speech on matters of public concern. The organization contends that the California Medical Board abandoned its statutory mission of protecting patients and instead operated as an enforcement mechanism for ideological conformity.“This case exposes a profound abuse of regulatory power,” said AFLDS attorney David Dalia. “Licensing boards do not have constitutional license to silence dissent. Courts have already confirmed the Board exceeded its authority, and this lawsuit seeks to enforce the boundaries the Constitution demands.”Attorney Heather Gibson stated, "Kristina Lawson, the former head of the California Medical Board, expressed her contempt against Dr. Gold after Dr. Gold publicly accused her of corruption by writing a letter on her law firm's letterhead to Dr. Gold's sentencing judge. In her letter, she touted her position as the President of the Medical Board, ostensibly in order to give her letter more credibility and authority with the judge, and pushed for a harsh sentence. In doing so, she made it clear that she would use her position of public trust on the Medical Board to harm Dr. Gold in any way she possibly could for her own, personal reasons."&nbsp;“I did not violate my oath,” said Dr. Simone Gold. “I honored it. The Medical Board chose usurpation over regulation and retaliation over accountability, attempting to destroy my career for speaking openly and honestly. This case is about restoring constitutional limits and ensuring no doctor is forced to choose between integrity and their livelihood.”Dr. Gold seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, compensatory damages against individual officials acting under color of law, and a ruling affirming that medical licensing authorities may not engage in viewpoint discrimination, selective enforcement, or retaliatory censorship.# # #About AFLDSWe are the Nation's independent authority on ethical and transparent standards in science, health, and human rights. We provide individuals with unbiased and accurate information from the world's top experts in medicine and law so you can be empowered with facts to protect your rights, take care of your health, and safeguard your future.&nbsp;Visit AFLDS.org Media Contact&nbsp;Lisa Alexander, Communications Director |&nbsp;<a href="mailto:Media@AFLDS.org">Media@AFLDS.org</a>

Dr. Simone Gold Files Federal Suit Against California Medical Board

Key Orders Elevate Religious Liberty and Constitutional LimitsWashington, DC | December 8, 2025America’s Frontline Doctors (AFLDS) announced today two consequential actions by the U.S. Supreme Court that sharply escalate judicial scrutiny of coercive vaccine mandates and reaffirm that constitutional limits remain fully operative in times of crisis.In&nbsp;<a href="https://aflds.org/about-us/press-releases/aflds-files-amici-curiae-brief-in-miller-v-mc-donald">Miller v. McDonald</a>, the Amish vaccine mandate, the Supreme Court issued a&nbsp;grant, vacate, and remand (GVR) order, directing the lower court to reconsider the case&nbsp;in light of&nbsp;<a href="https://aflds.org/about-us/press-releases/scotus-delivers-landmark-ruling-in-mahmoud-v-taylor">Mahmoud v. Taylor</a>. This action nullifies the prior ruling and compels renewed review under strengthened First Amendment standards governing religious liberty and unconstitutional coercion.Separately, in&nbsp;<a href="https://aflds.org/about-us/press-releases/aflds-files-amici-curiae-brief-in-does-v-hochul">Does v. Hochul</a>, a case involving New York healthcare workers terminated under the state’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate,&nbsp;the Supreme Court issued a Call for the Views of the Solicitor General&nbsp;(CVSG). This rare step signals that the Court considers the constitutional questions raised by New York’s mandate regime serious, unresolved, and worthy of heightened scrutiny before deciding whether to grant full review.In&nbsp;<a href="https://thegoldreport.substack.com/p/why-the-amish-fight-against-vaccine">Miller</a>, Amish parents and schools challenge New York’s elimination of religious exemptions to school vaccine requirements. As detailed in AFLDS’s prior&nbsp;<a href="https://res.cloudinary.com/aflds/image/upload/v1756995060/AFD_Miller_Amicus_Brief_83cf970755.pdf?updated_at=2025-09-04T14:11:01.395Z">amici curiae brief</a>, state officials sought to impose ruinous fines on peaceful religious communities for refusing injections that violate deeply held religious convictions. The Supreme Court’s decision to vacate and remand confirms that such claims cannot be dismissed under diluted constitutional analysis.In&nbsp;<a href="https://res.cloudinary.com/aflds/image/upload/v1749502773/Does_v_Hochul_AFLDS_Amici_Brief_31bd803a3b.pdf?updated_at=2025-06-09T20:59:34.242Z">Does</a>, former healthcare workers allege that New York unlawfully revoked religious accommodations and that the lower courts improperly treated the government’s assertion that the COVID shots were “safe and effective” as indisputable fact. AFLDS has consistently maintained that these injections are personal medical treatments, not traditional vaccines, and that the misuse of judicial notice to justify compulsory medical intervention undermines due process, informed consent, and constitutional limits.“A GVR is not a procedural footnote, it is a directive,” said AFLDS attorney David Dalia. “The Supreme Court wiped away the lower court’s ruling in&nbsp;Miller and ordered reconsideration under controlling First Amendment law. And by calling for the Solicitor General’s views in&nbsp;Does, the Court is openly questioning whether New York’s mandate regime can withstand meaningful constitutional review.”AFLDS Founder and President Dr. Simone Gold added:“From the outset of the COVID mandate era, America’s Frontline Doctors fought back in court. In 2021, AFLDS filed many lawsuits to stop unlawful vaccine mandates and to defend healthcare workers threatened with termination for refusing experimental injections. We rejected emergency decrees as law and coercion as consent.Our rights come from God and are protected by the Constitution. No state has the authority to violate conscience, destroy livelihoods, or force medical compliance. These mandates were unlawful, and they must be judged accordingly.”These Supreme Court developments build directly on AFLDS’s sustained legal advocacy in both cases and underscore a growing national reckoning with pandemic-era government overreach.AFLDS will continue to pursue accountability in the courts, defend medical freedom, and restore constitutional boundaries as these cases move forward.Stay tuned for further updates.# # #About AFLDSWe are the Nation's independent authority on ethical and transparent standards in science, health, and human rights. We provide individuals with unbiased and accurate information from the world's top experts in medicine and law so you can be empowered with facts to protect your rights, take care of your health, and safeguard your future.&nbsp;Visit AFLDS.orgMedia Contact&nbsp;Lisa Alexander, Communications Director |&nbsp;<a href="mailto:Media@AFLDS.org">Media@AFLDS.org</a>

Supreme Court Intensifies Review of Vaccine Mandates

Bridges v. The Methodist Hospital Challenges COVID-19 Injection Mandates Washington, DC&nbsp;- November 20, 2025On November 19, 2025, Dr. Simone Gold and the AFLDS legal team filed an&nbsp;<a href="https://res.cloudinary.com/aflds/image/upload/v1763657685/AFLDS_Amici_Brief_for_Bridges_1_25b2c8f2c3.pdf?updated_at=2025-11-20T16:54:46.534Z" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">amici curiae brief</a> with the United States Supreme Court in support of the Petitioners in&nbsp;Bridges v. The Methodist Hospital (25-481). The Petitioners are seeking <a href="https://res.cloudinary.com/aflds/image/upload/v1763657685/20251015222338432_Bridges_Petition_A_150bed293e.pdf?updated_at=2025-11-20T16:54:46.037Z" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">reversal</a> of a Fifth Circuit ruling that upheld the terminations of employees who refused COVID-19 injections mandated as a condition of employment.&nbsp;Earlier this year, AFLDS also&nbsp;<a href="https://aflds.org/about-us/press-releases/aflds-files-amici-curiae-brief-in-bridges-v-the-methodist-hospital">supported</a> the appeal to the Fifth Circuit (24-20483).&nbsp;This case carries national significance. Lead Petitioner Jennifer Bridges is widely recognized as one of the first nationally known healthcare workers fired for refusing the COVID-19 injection, after Houston Methodist became the first major hospital system in the United States to impose such a mandate in 2021. Her termination became the earliest and most prominent test case in the Nation challenging compulsory COVID-19 injection policies.The Petitioners, including Bridges, were terminated by Houston Methodist Hospital after refusing the injections and argued that the mandate violated informed consent, constitutional protections, and multiple federal and state civil and criminal laws. The district court dismissed their claims, and the Fifth Circuit affirmed that dismissal. The Petition now before the United States Supreme Court seeks reversal and holds implications for millions of American workers.&nbsp;America’s Frontline Doctors maintains that the COVID-19 mRNA injections never received full FDA approval and remained experimental products offered only under Emergency Use Authorization. These products have been linked to millions of adverse reactions and a tragic number of fatalities reported by medical professionals to VAERS.&nbsp;Forcing employees to receive an experimental medical product under threat of job loss constitutes medical battery, violates the constitutional right to refuse medical treatment, and contravenes federal informed consent protections codified in law, including 21 U.S.C. §360bbb-3, 21 C.F.R. §50.20, 21 C.F.R. §50.25, 45 C.F.R. §46.116, the Common Rule, and principles derived from the Nuremberg Code, contractually binding upon both public and private actors in this case.“These unconstitutional and medically dangerous mandates must be rejected,” said&nbsp;AFLDS attorney David Dalia, Counsel of Record on the brief. “Informed consent requires real choice, free from coercion, force, or threats. No American should ever be put in the position of choosing between their livelihood and their life.”“This case confronts one of the most dangerous assaults on personal liberty in our lifetime,” said&nbsp;Dr. Simone Gold, Founder and President of America’s Frontline Doctors. “Jennifer’s courage reminds us that our bodies are sacred and our liberty is God-given. No employer and no government has the authority to violate that. If America allows forced medical procedures, then the moral foundation of our Nation collapses. AFLDS has fought these mandates from the beginning, and with three cases now before the Supreme Court, we remain committed to securing a national precedent that protects every American. We will not stop until justice is done.”AFLDS maintains that Supreme Court review is urgently needed to safeguard informed consent, protect the doctor-patient relationship, and reaffirm the constitutional right to refuse medical treatment. These rights become meaningless if employers can override them with coercive mandates.&nbsp;Stay tuned for further updates on this case and other AFLDS legal initiatives defending medical freedom.# # #About AFLDSWe are the Nation's independent authority on ethical and transparent standards in science, health, and human rights. We provide individuals with unbiased and accurate information from the world's top experts in medicine and law so you can be empowered with facts to protect your rights, take care of your health, and safeguard your future.&nbsp;Visit AFLDS.org Media Contact&nbsp;Lisa Alexander, Communications Director |&nbsp;<a href="mailto:Media@AFLDS.org">Media@AFLDS.org</a>

Protecting your Medical
Freedom and Civil Liberties

Press Releases