Federal judge dismisses lawsuit filed by former GOP gubernatorial candidate Scott Jensen
Apr. 7—ST. PAUL — A federal judge dismissed a case filed by former Republican candidate for Minnesota governor Scott Jensen, who alleged that state investigations of his claims regarding COVID-19 were "politically motivated."
The court granted the medical board's motion to dismiss Jensen's federal lawsuit without prejudice on March 31, based on lack of standing. This is the second time the court granted the medical board's motion to dismiss this case without prejudice, meaning Jensen can file the charges again.
Jensen, a Minnesota family practice physician who unsuccessfully ran for governor against Democrat Tim Walz in 2022, filed the federal lawsuit in June 2023, claiming the Minnesota Board of Medical Practice violated his First Amendment rights to free speech and abused its power when investigating his claims regarding COVID-19.
His lawsuit claims his views, which contradicted those in mainstream media, were "both critical and complimentary" of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's actions.
In March 2024, the court first dismissed the case, claiming Jensen failed to sufficiently allege a concrete injury.
The first order to dismiss said Jensen's claims that he was politically targeted and that the anonymous complaints had an "ongoing chilling and suppressing effect" did not establish standing for his argument. Jensen also claimed the board treated physicians with different views "more favorably," but according to the court order, Jensen did not establish "standing for his viewpoint discrimination and equal protection claims."
Jensen filed an amended complaint less than three weeks later; however, the court claimed this year that Jensen again failed to allege a concrete injury.
"Emotional distress alone is not a cognizable injury in fact that creates standing," the court order dismissing the lawsuit said.
In a release to the Upper Midwest Law Center, Jensen said his lawsuit has never been about one person.
"It's about all of us and our right to free speech," he said in the release. "If it can happen to me, why couldn't it happen to anyone?"
The UMLC responded to the court's dismissal of Jensen's lawsuit, noting that the center disagrees.
"Dr. Jensen will appeal, and he will win," UMLC Senior Counsel James Dickey said in a release.
Dickey noted that Jensen had never been investigated by the medical board in his 40 years of medical practice and that Jensen was selected to be the 2016 Minnesota Family Practice Doctor of the Year.
"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," Dickey said. "Anyone in his shoes would think twice about talking after that experience. He was obviously harmed by these frivolous speech investigations. The First Amendment stands in the way of that kind of weaponized government censorship."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
22 minutes ago
- Yahoo
After vowing ‘90 deals in 90 days,' the White House's rhetoric runs into reality
Donald Trump clearly wants the public to believe he recently struck a trade deal with China. The president did not actually reach such an agreement, but he's leaned into his fictional narrative with great enthusiasm lately. Last Thursday, for example, the Republican published an item to his social media platform, noting that he'd spoken to Chinese President Xi Jinping about 'the intricacies of our recently made, and agreed to, Trade Deal.' Soon after, during an Oval Office event, he again touted the same 'trade deal.' A day later, Trump posted a follow-up item, announcing the members of a delegation who would travel to London to meet with Chinese officials about 'the Trade Deal.' The bad news is that the 'trade deal' in question does not exist, no matter how many times the American president pretends otherwise. The good news is that administration officials will actually have some discussions with their Chinese counterparts. NBC News reported: Senior U.S. and Chinese officials will meet in London on Monday in an effort to de-escalate the bitter trade dispute between the world's two biggest economies that has roiled the global economy, with China's restrictions on critical minerals high on the agenda. About a month ago, Trump announced what he characterized as a 'deal' with China, but the closer one looked at the details, the more the truth came into focus. Georgetown University professor Abraham Newman wrote a great piece for MSNBC that explained, "While the U.S. did avoid a major economic calamity, this is not a deal. The U.S. blinked. ... Far from some diplomatic coup, the U.S. climb down reflects the economic risks of maintaining such high tariffs.' The editorial board of The Wall Street Journal came to the same conclusion, noting, '[T]he China deal is more surrender than Trump victory.' Complicating matters, while the White House and Beijing reached a tentative agreement that paused the two countries' tit-for-tat tariffs, both countries have since accused each other of violating the agreement. All of which brings to mind Peter Navarro, the White House's top trade adviser, who boasted in April, 'We're going to run 90 deals in 90 days.' Navarro added that such a plan 'is possible' in part because 'the boss is going to be the chief negotiator.' Roughly two months later, the grand total currently stands at zero. Generous observers might be inclined to give Trump credit for striking a deal with the U.K., but as The Washington Post's Dana Milbank summarized in his latest column, that deal is really more of a 'vaguely phrased framework with Britain that still hasn't been made public.' What's more, a new Politico report added that a month after the agreement was announced, the U.S.-U.K. duties 'remain in place' and 'there is still no clear timeline for when they'll lift.' Or to put it another way, two-thirds of the way into the '90 deals in 90 days' vow, the White House appears to be 90 deals short. Undeterred, Navarro returned to Fox Business late last week, where he was asked when the public should expect to see some breakthroughs. 'We will have deals,' Navarro said. 'It takes time. Usually, it takes months and years. In this administration, it's gonna take more like days.' On average, the typical timeframe for a U.S. trade deal is roughly 30 months. That didn't deter Navarro from pushing the '90 deals in 90 days' talking point in April, and it apparently didn't stop him from claiming again last week that Team Trump will produce amazing results in a matter of days. The White House's top trade adviser should be going out of his way right now to lower expectations after already having set an impossibly high bar. For reasons unknown, Navarro is doing the opposite, setting up the Trump administration for additional failure. This article was originally published on
Yahoo
22 minutes ago
- Yahoo
‘Unfathomable': Seth Rogen Torches Lawmakers Threatening Cuts to Medicaid
Lauren Miller Rogen was 22 years old, celebrating her graduation from college the first time she noticed something was happening to her mother, Adele. It was relatively minor: 'She repeated herself — she told a story a few times about a friend of hers,' Rogen says. But for Lauren, who had watched Adele care for her own parents as they slowly succumbed to Alzheimer's disease, it was the potential future that unnerved her. Within two years, Adele, a first-grade teacher, would be diagnosed with early-onset Alzheimer's at age 55. By that time, Lauren was living in Los Angeles, and dating her then-boyfriend, the actor Seth Rogen. When the couple married a few years later, Adele's condition had progressed to the point that it wasn't clear at their wedding if she even realized who Lauren was. 'She knew I was the bride — she kept calling me the bride,' Lauren recalled in Taking Care, a documentary the couple made to raise awareness about the challenges that families face while caring for a person with advancing dementia. The toll of caring for Adele was hardest on Lauren's father. 'There was a time early on, before we brought care in, where we were like, 'Oh, we're gonna lose him first.' This — caring for her — seemed like it's literally killing him,' she says. 'Without being able to afford outside help, I dread imagining what would have happened,' Lauren says. The couple went on to found a nonprofit, Hilarity for Charity, that disburses grants to offset the cost of caring for a person with dementia. 'Until we were part of the care system, we didn't realize how broken it was,' Seth says in a video they recorded on behalf of the organization Caring Across Generations, to raise alarms about the threat families face under a pair of proposals to slash health care programs for the poor and disabled that are being considered at the state and federal level, and encourage people to contact their legislators. He adds, 'Millions of low income families, families of people with disabilities, families that have older adults in them, are facing this struggle every day right now. And that is why it is so unfathomable that federal and state legislatures are making massive cuts to Medicaid as we speak.' 'We are cutting crucial services for people who are aging and disabled,' he explains. 'That means these people will be losing access or have less access to the health care they need, creating more out-of-pocket expenses and medical debt.' In Washington, President Donald Trump's 'Big Beautiful Bill,' which was recently approved by the Republican majority in the House of Representatives, would cut roughly $600 billion from Medicaid in order to help pay for a new round of tax cuts for the wealthy. The Trump tax bill is projected to kick over 10 million people off Medicaid, the government health insurance program for low-income and disabled Americans. The legislation would also limit so-called provider taxes, which states use to provide supplemental payments to hospitals, doctors, and other health care providers to help pay the costs of treating Medicaid patients. The bill would additionally impose a financial penalty on states, like California, that offer health coverage to undocumented immigrants. In California, the situation could be compounded by further cuts proposed by Governor Gavin Newsom (D) that would slash Medi-Cal, the state's Medicaid program. Roughly one quarter of the five million Americans with dementia rely on Medicaid, the country's largest payer of long-term care. Medicaid is a pillar for caregivers — some 12 percent of recipients are people who can't work because of their responsibilities caring for a family member. Their ability to access the program could be jeopardized by the Big Beautiful Bill, which would impose work requirements on all able-bodied adults under 65 in order to qualify for Medicaid. 'Almost everyone in this country knows or loves someone that relies on Medicaid, even if they don't rely on Medicaid themselves. And we have the power together,' Lauren says in the video. 'We need to reject any cuts or changes that would take more care away from families that need and deserve it,' Seth adds. 'At the state level and the federal level.' More from Rolling Stone Trump Continues Inflaming L.A. Protests: 'BRING IN THE TROOPS!!!' ABC News Suspends Journalist for Calling Stephen Miller and Trump 'World-Class Haters' Republicans Say They're Cool With Trump Deploying Troops Against Protesters Best of Rolling Stone The Useful Idiots New Guide to the Most Stoned Moments of the 2020 Presidential Campaign Anatomy of a Fake News Scandal The Radical Crusade of Mike Pence
Yahoo
22 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Democrats have a dirty secret - they actually like some of the tax cuts in Trump's ‘big beautiful bill'
Some of the sweeping tax cuts proposed in President Donald Trump's massive spending package have found support among Democrats — even as they are expected to oppose the legislation over proposed cuts to Medicaid and other government services when it comes up for debate in the Senate later this month, according to a new report. The gargantuan budget package, which House Republicans and the White House have dubbed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, passed the House by a single vote last month and is now drawing heat from fiscal hawks in both chambers as well as Tesla CEO Elon Musk, who was fresh off his months-long stint as a special government employee when he began threatening to back challengers to any legislator who votes for the bill. Still, there are facets of the proposal that have appeal for some Democrats, the New York Times reports. Virginia Rep. Don Beyer, a Democrat who is also a wealthy car dealership owner, told the Times his party is 'in general very much in favor of reducing taxes on working people and the working poor' when asked about Trump's plan to end taxes on service workers' tips. 'Those people are living on tips,' he added. Trump's tip tax cut plan has also attracted attention from Sen. Jacky Rosen of Nevada, a state where service workers make up a large and powerful voting bloc that has traditionally supported Democrats but shifted to Trump in large numbers during the 2024 presidential election, handing him the Silver State's electoral votes. Rosen, a Democrat, took to the Senate floor last month to advance a bill approving Trump's 'no tax on tips' plan. It passed unanimously even though the measure was largely symbolic because the U.S. constitution requires tax laws to originate in the House 'I am not afraid to embrace a good idea, wherever it comes from,'. she said at the time in remarks on the Senate floor. Yet despite the support for some of the individual tax provisions in the plan, it's highly unlikely that it will be able to muster enough if any Democrats to ease the way to Trump's desk, even under a Senate procedure known as budget reconciliation, which fast-tracks some types of spending legislation without subjecting it to the upper chamber's de facto 60-vote threshold for passage. Democrats are expected to unanimously vote against the legislation in the upper chamber, where it has also attracted opposition from some Republicans who've complained that the cuts to spending in the package don't go far enough to offset the reduced revenue caused by provisions meant to enact Trump campaign promises to end taxes on tips for service workers, as well as taxes on overtime pay for hourly workers and on social security benefits for seniors. Nonpartisan experts such as those at the Congressional Budget Office have warned that the reduced tax receipts would blow a massive hole in the federal budget and jeopardize America's long-term fiscal outlook, but that hasn't stopped some prominent Democrats from getting behind the individuals tax cuts. Trump and his allies hope the prominent tax cut proposals will blunt Democrats' efforts to paint the One Big Beautiful Bill Act as a giveaway to wealthy GOP donors that will gut government services while only providing limited relief for working-class voters. To that end, the president and others in his camp have routinely taken to social media to argue that anyone who votes against the bill is effectively voting for tax increases because the legislation makes permanent a number of temporary tax cuts enacted in the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which Trump signed into law during his first term. Democrats, meanwhile, remain opposed to the bill's massive cuts to Medicare and other measures that make it harder for people to claim tax credits meant to boost lower-income Americans' bottom lines. Rep. Brad Schneider, an Illnois Democrat, told the Times that the whole bill had to be considered rather than any individual provision or provisiosn. 'Any one thing — a tax credit or a tax cut — might make sense, but you've got to take a look at the whole picture,' he said.
