Defending Parents, Protecting Religious Freedom, Preserving Informed ConsentWashington, DC – November 4, 2026On November 2, 2026, Dr. Simone Gold and the AFLDS legal team filed an&nbsp;<a href="https://res.cloudinary.com/aflds/image/upload/v1793807737/AFD_Miller_II_Amici_Brief_42c90db641.pdf?updated_at=2026-11-04T15:55:38.535Z" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">amici curiae brief</a> with the Supreme Court of the United States in support of the Petitioners in&nbsp;Miller v. McDonald (26-438). Last year, we&nbsp;<a href="https://aflds.org/about-us/press-releases/aflds-files-amici-curiae-brief-in-miller-v-mc-donald">filed</a> a brief in support of the Petitioners in&nbsp;an earlier appeal. The Supreme Court ruled in their favor, but as a result of the Second Circuit's subsequent decision, the Petitioners are now appealing again to the High Court.The Petitioners are three Old Order Amish individuals and three Amish schools in rural New York. They are challenging New York’s enforcement of its categorical ban on religious exemptions to the state’s school vaccine requirement under N.Y. Public Health Law § 2164. AFLDS is urging the Supreme Court to grant the Petitioners’&nbsp;<a href="https://res.cloudinary.com/aflds/image/upload/v1793807738/20260928152759674_26_Petition_efb8e37833.pdf?updated_at=2026-11-04T15:55:38.717Z" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">writ of certiorari</a> and reverse the Second Circuit’s ruling, which persists in upholding the ban even after the Court’s prior grant-vacate-remand 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>.After the Supreme Court&nbsp;<a href="https://aflds.org/about-us/press-releases/supreme-court-intensifies-review-of-vaccine-mandates">vacated</a> the Second Circuit’s earlier decision and remanded for reconsideration under&nbsp;Mahmoud, the Second Circuit again affirmed dismissal. It held that Section 2164 does not regulate what children are taught, does not require affirmation of any belief, and does not expose children to state-selected instruction contrary to their parents’ faith. Our brief demonstrates that Section 2164 does all of those things: it causes impressionable Amish children to question their parents’ fundamental and sincere religious objections to vaccination—a core tenet of the Amish faith—and forces affirmation of the state’s contested claims that all vaccines are safe, effective, and stop infection and transmission.&nbsp;Rather than applying&nbsp;Mahmoud, which reaffirmed parents’ fundamental right to guide their children’s religious education and which the Supreme Court expressly directed the Second Circuit to follow, the court turned instead to&nbsp;Employment Division v. Smith (1990).&nbsp;Smith has been widely criticized for weakening Free Exercise protections by misreading and restricting the reach of&nbsp;Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972), the foundational case upholding the religious liberty of the Old Order Amish.New York is an extreme outlier. Only four states (New York, California, Connecticut, and Maine) refuse to allow new religious exemptions to school vaccine requirements. On August 21, 2025, HHS’s Office for Civil Rights warned West Virginia against similar refusals. The brief further notes that the safety, efficacy, and necessity of certain childhood vaccines remain under active HHS review, including the reinstated Task Force on Safer Childhood Vaccines. Parents retain the constitutional right to refuse unwanted medical treatments under&nbsp;Cruzan v. Director (1990) and related precedents, and to direct their children’s religious upbringing and medical care under&nbsp;Mahmoud and&nbsp;Yoder.“The Second Circuit’s refusal to apply&nbsp;Mahmoud after this Court’s remand is a direct defiance of the First Amendment and of the Supreme Court,”&nbsp;said AFLDS attorney David Dalia. “New York’s Section 2164 does not merely regulate conduct. It forces Amish children to confront and question their parents’ faith and to affirm the state’s disputed medical orthodoxy. New York cannot repeal the Free Exercise of Religion Clause or the right of parents to protect their children. Ruinous fines against peaceful religious communities for refusing to abandon their beliefs is not public health. It is unconstitutional government overreach.”AFLDS Founder and President Dr. Simone Gold added: “This is about liberty and informed consent, not one-size-fits-all mandates. Every parent has the God-given right to protect their child according to their faith and conscience, especially while legitimate questions about vaccine safety and necessity remain under review. When a state abolishes all religious exemptions while permitting medical ones, it violates the Free Exercise Clause, parental rights, and the principle of ‘first, do no harm.’ AFLDS will continue to fight until these fundamental rights are restored.”This case will determine whether states may effectively prohibit the practice of the Amish faith within their borders and whether parental rights and informed consent can be overridden by compelled injections. If New York’s no-exemption regime is allowed to stand, it sets a dangerous precedent that erases religious liberty and strips parents of authority over their children’s medical care. AFLDS calls on the Supreme Court to grant review and reaffirm that these rights are fundamental and non-negotiable.Stay tuned — AFLDS will continue to update the public as this case moves forward and as we fight nationwide to safeguard truth, health, and 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 &nbsp;Media Contact&nbsp;Lisa Alexander, Executive Director |&nbsp;<a href="mailto:Media@AFLDS.org">Media@AFLDS.org</a>

AFLDS Files Amici Brief in Miller v. McDonald

Defending a Father’s Right to Protect His Son from Medical MutilationWashington, DC - October 21, 2026&nbsp;On October 19, 2026, Dr. Simone Gold and the AFLDS legal team filed an&nbsp;<a href="https://res.cloudinary.com/aflds/image/upload/v1792601664/261019a_AC_for_efiling_10_19_2026_2c36791d39.pdf?updated_at=2026-10-21T16:54:24.813Z" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">amici curiae brief</a> with the Supreme Court of the United States in support of Petitioner Edward Allyn Hudacko in&nbsp;Hudacko v. Regents of the University of California, et al. (26-180), urging the court to grant&nbsp;<a href="https://res.cloudinary.com/aflds/image/upload/v1792601664/20260807153429146_Petition_for_Certiorari_Hudacko_v_Regents_of_Univ_of_Cal_993f2a2b73.pdf?updated_at=2026-10-21T16:54:25.064Z" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">certiorari</a> and enforce the father’s fundamental parental right to veto any cross-sex hormone implant surgery, as provided for by his trial court child custody order. The father’s court-ordered veto power was knowingly ignored by the defendant Respondents. The Ninth Circuit acknowledged the validity of the father’s fundamental parental right, but refused to enforce it.&nbsp;When Ted Hudacko divorced his wife, a California family court left him with one remaining parental right: “any gender identity related surgery” on his minor son could not be performed without his written consent or further court order. Despite knowing of that order and of Hudacko’s explicit refusal to consent, state medical officials (aided by other state actors) performed a cross-sex hormone-dispensing implant procedure (Supprelin) on his son. The procedure was billed as surgery and is described as surgical by the manufacturer. Hudacko only found out about the procedure after receiving an insurance bill for more than $200,000 labeled “surgery.”The lower courts threw out his claims, holding that it was not “clearly established” that the implant counted as surgery under the custody order and that the conduct was not sufficiently “outrageous.” In upholding the dismissal, the Ninth Circuit granted the UCSF defendants qualified immunity, a legal protection against civil damages. The Ninth Circuit used a broader test for qualified immunity not followed by a majority of the Circuit courts, concluding that Hudacko’s asserted right was not clearly established under the circumstances and that the implant could reasonably be interpreted as hormone therapy under the custody order. This was despite the fact that subcutaneous implants are commonly viewed and billed as minor surgical procedures performed under local anesthesia.&nbsp;America’s Frontline Doctors maintains that this was an outrageous violation of fundamental parental rights. The overwhelming weight of research shows that so-called “gender-affirming” interventions such as cross-sex hormone implants are very likely to cause lifelong harm. Desistance data confirm that the vast majority of children naturally outgrow gender confusion if allowed to progress through puberty. Ignoring biological reality and permanently “affirming” a temporary condition is bad medicine and bad public policy.Our brief emphasizes that these harms—permanent sterility, loss of sexual function, and lifelong medical dependency—are orders of magnitude more severe than the school policies the Supreme Court recently enjoined in&nbsp;<a href="https://aflds.org/about-us/press-releases/scotus-delivers-landmark-ruling-in-mahmoud-v-taylor">Mahmoud v. Taylor</a>. Respondents’ disregard of parental authority also conflicts with HHS guidance, presidential executive orders protecting children from chemical and surgical mutilation, and multiple state laws.“Children belong to their parents, not the state,” said Dr. Gold. “This father went to court, secured an order protecting his right to withhold consent to surgery, and told the doctors no. They proceeded anyway, according to his petition. A physician’s first duty is to do no harm. No child is born in the wrong body, and no&nbsp;<a href="https://aflds.org/medical/mutilation">medical ideology</a>&nbsp;gives doctors the authority to disregard a parent’s rights. We are asking the Supreme Court to hear this case and defend parents trying to protect their children.”&nbsp;“A father should not need another lawsuit with identical facts to enforce a court order protecting his right to say no to extremely damaging surgery with lifelong consequences including likely sterilization on his minor child, who lacks the capacity to understand or consent to such surgery,” said AFLDS attorney David Dalia. “The Ninth Circuit acknowledged his parental right, then shielded the defendants from accountability for allegedly violating it. The father’s petition artfully points out the fallacies in the lower court opinions. We are asking the Supreme Court to take this case because constitutional rights mean little if courts refuse to enforce them.”&nbsp;This filing continues AFLDS’ work defending children and parental rights, including our&nbsp;amici curiae briefs in&nbsp;<a href="https://aflds.org/about-us/press-releases/scotus-delivers-historic-ruling-in-united-states-v-skrmetti">United States v. Skrmetti</a>,&nbsp;<a href="https://aflds.org/about-us/press-releases/scotus-delivers-landmark-ruling-in-mahmoud-v-taylor">Mahmoud v. Taylor</a>, and&nbsp;<a href="https://aflds.org/about-us/press-releases/supreme-court-sides-with-parents-in-mirabelli-v-bonta">Mirabelli v. Bonta</a>, and our documentary&nbsp;<a href="https://aflds.org/whatisadoctor">What Is A Doctor?</a>&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.orgMedia Contact&nbsp;Lisa Alexander, Executive Director |&nbsp;<a href="mailto:Media@AFLDS.org">Media@AFLDS.org</a>

AFLDS Files Brief in Hudacko v. Regents of the University of CA

Seeking Restorative Justice for Americans Victimized by COVID MandatesWashington, DC – September 21, 2026On September 18, 2026, Dr. Simone Gold and the AFLDS legal team filed an&nbsp;<a href="https://res.cloudinary.com/aflds/image/upload/v1790019790/AFLDS_Boyd_Amici_Brief_8b10f0e933.pdf?updated_at=2026-09-21T19:43:10.992Z" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">amici curiae brief</a> with the Supreme Court of the United States in support of the Petitioners in&nbsp;Boyd v. Shriners Hospitals for Children (26-220). Our brief urges the Court to grant certiorari and reverse the Third Circuit’s decision affirming the District Court’s dismissal of the Petitioners’ claims.The Petitioners—Beth Boyd, Janet Noland, Michelle Peck, and Carly Robson—were terminated by Shriners Hospitals for Children in Pennsylvania, after refusing to comply with a September 2021 COVID-19 “vaccine” mandate. They sued, alleging the mandate deprived them of their right to refuse Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) drugs, their right to be treated equally before the law, and the right to privacy. The Western District of Pennsylvania dismissed the case. The Third Circuit later affirmed, treating Shriners’ employment mandate as separate from its role in the federal COVID-19 Vaccination Program and treating the mandated product as the “functional equivalent” of the fully approved Comirnaty.AFLDS first&nbsp;<a href="https://aflds.org/about-us/press-releases/aflds-files-amici-curiae-brief-in-boyd-v-shriners">stood</a> with the Petitioners at the Third Circuit in April 2025. The <a href="https://res.cloudinary.com/aflds/image/upload/v1790019790/20260812231009017_Boyd_Petition_d9a300323c.pdf?updated_at=2026-09-21T19:43:10.930Z" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">issues</a> now before the Supreme Court&nbsp;include whether hospitals that enrolled in the CDC distribution program may coerce employees into taking&nbsp;dangerous investigational mRNA injections under threat of job loss, and whether those claims may be thrown out before discovery begins.AFLDS and Dr. Gold present a medical and legal record the lower courts refused to confront:<ul><li>The CDC’s COVID-19 Vaccination Program contractually and legally bound participating providers—including Shriners—to comply with federal constitutional and statutory rights, obligations, and rules concerning&nbsp; experimental, investigational drugs. Shriners violated binding informed consent and experimental drug regulations.</li><li>At the time of the mandate, the injections Shriners required were EUA investigational products, not the licensed Comirnaty. Federal law required that participation be voluntary and free from coercion.</li><li>Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health holds that personal medical treatment decisions must be strictly voluntary and free from coercion. Conditioning employment on an experimental injection is coercion.</li><li>Jacobson v. Massachusetts does not authorize forced personal medical treatments that do not prevent infection or transmission. These shots are personal medical treatments only.</li><li>The CDC’s own VAERS system has documented millions of adverse reactions and hospitalizations, and 39,205 fatalities attributable to these mRNA injections through July 31, 2026. Historically, a vaccine would be pulled from the market after only a few deaths.</li><li>Federal and state policy has already shifted. HHS has removed the shot from the CDC schedule for healthy children and healthy pregnant women, Florida has called for a halt to mRNA COVID shots, and multiple states are moving to limit or ban them.</li></ul>AFLDS attorney David Dalia stated,&nbsp;“It should be obvious that you cannot sign up to distribute an experimental drug with a terrible safety profile, including numerous fatalities, permanent disabilities, and miscarriages, and then fire people for refusing to take it. Informed consent must be voluntary and free of coercion. Absolutely no one should have to choose between their job and an injection they do not want. The right of personal bodily integrity and the right to refuse unwanted medical treatments are fundamental rights. Yet, these claims were thrown out before discovery even began. That is not how fundamental rights are supposed to work. We are hopeful the Supreme Court will take this case and correct the deeply flawed decisions of the lower courts.”AFLDS Founder and President Dr. Simone Gold added, “Last year, we told the Third Circuit that this case could break the dam of COVID tyranny. The dam is cracking. What remains is for the Supreme Court to say what should have been obvious from the first day: no hospital, no employer, and no government may force an experimental injection into a free citizen’s body as the price of earning a living. We stand with the Petitioners in&nbsp;Boyd. Justice is not optional.”AFLDS maintains that these coercive mandates violate the right to refuse medical treatment, bodily integrity, prohibitions on medical battery, and the Nuremberg principle that human experimentation must be voluntary. If the dismissals stand, the violations are likely to recur the next time officials declare an emergency.Stay tuned. AFLDS will continue to update supporters on&nbsp;Boyd and on our mission to deliver restorative justice for Americans victimized by COVID mandates. &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 &nbsp;Media Contact&nbsp;Lisa Alexander, Executive Director |&nbsp;<a href="mailto:Media@AFLDS.org">Media@AFLDS.org</a>

AFLDS Files Supreme Court Amici Curiae Brief in Boyd v. Shriners

Defending Parental Rights and Protecting ChildrenWashington, DC – September 16, 2026On September 15, 2026, Dr. Simone Gold and the AFLDS legal team filed an&nbsp;<a href="https://res.cloudinary.com/aflds/image/upload/v1789580976/AFLDS_Intl_Partners_Amici_Brief_6731ffe89d.pdf?updated_at=2026-09-16T17:49:36.757Z" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">amici curiae brief</a> with the Supreme Court of the United States on the merits in&nbsp;International Partners for Ethical Care, Inc. v. Ferguson (25-840). Our brief urges the Supreme Court to reverse the Ninth Circuit’s decision denying fit parents access to the courts while Washington State displaces them from medical decision-making regarding their own gender-confused children.AFLDS&nbsp;<a href="https://aflds.org/about-us/press-releases/aflds-files-amici-curiae-brief-in-international-partners-v-ferguson">filed</a> at the certiorari stage earlier this year and SCOTUS&nbsp;<a href="https://aflds.org/about-us/press-releases/scotus-grants-certiorari-in-international-partners-v-ferguson">granted</a> review on June 29th. The question now is whether Washington State’s 2023 Family Reconciliation Act amendments may unconstitutionally brand parents unfit, hide runaway children from them, and facilitate so-called “gender-affirming” interventions — all without parental notice, consent, or due process, and without any finding of abuse or neglect.<a href="https://res.cloudinary.com/aflds/image/upload/v1789580976/25_840_Merits_Brief_7281b2e662.pdf?updated_at=2026-09-16T17:49:36.680Z" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">The Petitioners</a> are mothers and fathers raising children in accordance with biological reality. Under the challenged law, a minor who runs away and claims to seek “gender-affirming treatment” may be kept from parents by the Department of Children, Youth, and Family Services. The state may delay reunification and begin interventions that can sterilize a child, destroy sexual function, and require lifelong medical dependence. The Ninth Circuit held these parents lacked standing — a ruling AFLDS contends is unconstitutional and medically dangerous.Parental care, custody, and control is among the oldest liberty interests recognized by this Court. It is meaningless if parents must wait until a child has been chemically or surgically altered before they may be heard. Secret “affirmation” is not neutral health care. It is the first step toward puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgical mutilation of healthy bodies.The evidence does not support Washington’s approach. The vast majority of gender-confused minors naturally outgrow their confusion if they are not pushed into social and medical “affirmation.” HHS’s May 2025 comprehensive review found that these treatments “have very weak evidence of benefit, but carry risk of significant harms, including sterilization.” The United Kingdom closed Tavistock; European nations have sharply restricted these interventions. Washington State is moving in the opposite direction, in secret, over parental objection.The Petitioners have standing because the statute targets them for their viewpoints. Recent decisions —&nbsp;Bost,&nbsp;Diamond Alternative Energy,&nbsp;First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, and&nbsp;<a href="https://aflds.org/about-us/press-releases/supreme-court-sides-with-parents-in-mirabelli-v-bonta">Mirabelli</a> — confirm that when a law makes a defined class its object, that class has legal standing to challenge such a law. The injuries to parents and children here are state-inflicted, not “self-inflicted” as found by the Ninth Circuit.AFLDS Founder and President Dr. Simone Gold stated: “The government has no authority to brand fit parents as unfit simply because they refuse to participate in the&nbsp;<a href="https://aflds.org/medical/mutilation">medical mutilation</a>&nbsp;of their children. Gender ideology denies biological reality and demands obedience to a false construct over truth. Parents answer for their children before God — not before bureaucrats. The Constitution protects families, not ideology.”AFLDS attorney David Dalia added, “This case presents a direct and deliberate usurpation of the parental role. Washington State’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&nbsp;these&nbsp;parent Petitioners are the very targets of a statute, they must be allowed into court to defend their families. The Court granted certiorari to decide whether a state may conceal children from fit parents and put them on a path of lifelong irreversible harm. It should now reverse.”Alongside cases such as&nbsp;<a href="https://aflds.org/about-us/press-releases/aflds-files-ninth-circuit-amici-curiae-brief-in-regino-v-blake">Regino v. Blake</a> and&nbsp;<a href="https://aflds.org/about-us/press-releases/scotus-delivers-landmark-ruling-in-mahmoud-v-taylor">Mahmoud v. Taylor</a>, this case will help decide whether parents still have the constitutional authority to protect their children, or whether states may seize that authority under the banner of “protected health care.”International Partners will be argued before the Supreme Court on December 7th. Stay tuned as AFLDS continues 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.orgMedia Contact&nbsp;Lisa Alexander, Executive Director |&nbsp;<a href="mailto:Media@AFLDS.org">Media@AFLDS.org</a>

AFLDS Files Merits Brief in International Partners v. Ferguson

Physician Free Speech Claims RevivedDenver, CO. – July 23, 2026On July 21, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit <a href="https://res.cloudinary.com/aflds/image/upload/v1784817846/25_8021_Documents_54_1_54_2_Opinion_7_21_2026_deb3fca2f6.pdf?updated_at=2026-07-23T14:44:07.235Z" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">issued</a> its decision in&nbsp;Cubin v. Gordon (25-8021), partially reversing the district court’s judgment and reviving Dr. Eric Cubin’s First Amendment retaliation claims against Wyoming Governor Mark Gordon in his official capacity. America’s Frontline Doctors and Dr. Simone Gold, who filed an&nbsp;<a href="https://aflds.org/about-us/press-releases/aflds-files-amici-curiae-brief-in-cubin-v-gordon">amici curiae brief</a> in support of Dr. Cubin, welcome this important development protecting physician free speech.Dr. Cubin is a respected and accomplished doctor, appointed by Governor Gordon to the Wyoming Board of Medicine. In early 2024, after the Wyoming Medical Society publicly opposed&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wyoleg.gov/Legislation/2024/SF0099">Chloe’s Law</a>—a proposed bill that would restrict the ability of state doctors to provide “gender-affirming care” to minors—Dr. Cubin emailed all members of the Wyoming House of Representatives from his personal account. He criticized the Society’s position and expressed his personal support for the bill, which later passed and was signed into law. Governor Gordon subsequently removed Dr. Cubin from the Board, expressly citing his email to lawmakers.&nbsp;The district court&nbsp;<a href="https://aflds.org/videos/post/daily-dose-ethcial-doctor-punished-with-dr-peterson-pierre">denied</a> Dr. Cubin’s motion for a preliminary injunction. The Tenth Circuit has now held that Dr. Cubin’s email addressed a matter of public concern and that the lower court erred by conducting&nbsp;Pickering balancing at the pleadings stage. The court reversed and remanded the official-capacity First Amendment claim and encouraged the district court to reconsider whether it should exercise jurisdiction over Dr. Cubin’s state constitutional claim.&nbsp;The decision restores Dr. Cubin’s opportunity to prove that he suffered unconstitutional retaliation for addressing elected lawmakers on a matter of urgent public concern. AFLDS maintains that physicians do not surrender their First Amendment rights when they accept public appointments, and government officials may not punish them merely because their medical judgment challenges a favored ideology.&nbsp;America’s Frontline Doctors contends that terminating Dr. Cubin for speaking accurate medical information in a private capacity is unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination and violates the First Amendment. Speech in favor of these interventions was tolerated; speech against them was punished. Both viewpoints are entitled to equal protection under the Constitution.AFLDS attorney David Dalia stated: “The Tenth Circuit correctly recognized that Dr. Cubin’s email engaged core political speech on a matter of intense public debate. Chloe’s Law protects Wyoming’s minor children from irreversible interventions with lifelong consequences. Children cannot give informed consent to procedures that sterilize them and permanently alter healthy bodies. At least twenty-five other states have enacted similar protections. Dr. Cubin’s private-capacity speech advancing these medical realities is fully entitled to First Amendment protection, and is consistent with the AMA’s ethical principles calling on physicians to improve public health and make relevant medical information available.”AFLDS Founder and President Dr. Simone Gold added: “Dr. Cubin was forced from a state medical board because he refused to remain silent while children faced irreversible harm. No child is born in the wrong body, and no physician should be punished for defending biological reality, informed consent, and ethical medicine. Medical boards must not become enforcers of political orthodoxy. Dr. Cubin is an example of what a frontline doctor should be: a physician willing to put patients and truth ahead of professional intimidation.”This case continues to have national significance for every physician who speaks on matters of public health. AFLDS will continue to monitor the proceedings. We stand in solidarity with Dr. Cubin and righteous doctors everywhere. Together we will keep fighting to restore truth and free speech to medicine.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 &nbsp;Media Contact&nbsp;Lisa Alexander, Executive Director |&nbsp;<a href="mailto:Media@AFLDS.org">Media@AFLDS.org</a>

AFLDS Welcomes Tenth Circuit Victory in Cubin v. Gordon

Supreme Court to Hear Major Parental Rights CaseWashington, DC – June 29, 2026Today, the Supreme Court of the United States&nbsp;<a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/25-840.html">granted</a> certiorari in&nbsp;International Partners for Ethical Care, Inc. v. Ferguson (25-840), a critical parental rights case in which America’s Frontline Doctors filed an&nbsp;<a href="https://aflds.org/about-us/press-releases/aflds-files-amici-curiae-brief-in-international-partners-v-ferguson">amici curiae brief</a> earlier this year.The Court will now hear arguments on whether Washington State’s 2023 Family Reconciliation Act amendments unconstitutionally displace fit parents from medical decision-making for their gender-confused children. Under the challenged law, if a minor runs away and claims to seek “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 — without due process or any finding of abuse or neglect.The harms are severe and immediate. The Petitioners are mothers and fathers raising children struggling with gender confusion. These parents 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.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. As highlighted in AFLDS’ documentary&nbsp;<a href="https://americasfrontlinedoctors.org/whatisadoctor">What Is A Doctor?</a>, we maintain that “gender-affirming” interventions are not neutral health care. Secret behavioral affirmation 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 Founder and President Dr. Simone Gold stated: “Today’s grant of certiorari is a major victory for parental rights and a critical rebuke to state overreach. The government has no authority to brand fit parents as unfit simply because they refuse to participate in the&nbsp;<a href="https://aflds.org/medical/mutilation">medical mutilation</a> of their children. Gender ideology denies biological reality and demands obedience to a false construct over truth. Parents answer for their children before God — not before bureaucrats. The Constitution protects families, not ideology.” AFLDS attorney David Dalia added, “This case presents a direct and deliberate usurpation of the parental role. Washington State’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.”This case carries national significance. Alongside cases like&nbsp;<a href="https://aflds.org/about-us/press-releases/aflds-files-ninth-circuit-amici-curiae-brief-in-regino-v-blake">Regino v. Blake</a>, International Partners&nbsp;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.” AFLDS will continue 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.orgMedia Contact&nbsp;Lisa Alexander, Executive Director |&nbsp;<a href="mailto:Media@AFLDS.org">Media@AFLDS.org</a>

SCOTUS Grants Certiorari in International Partners v. Ferguson

Asks Supreme Court to Review Coercive Medical Mandates&nbsp;Washington, DC – April 28, 2026&nbsp;On April 24, 2026, Dr. Simone Gold and the AFLDS legal team filed an&nbsp;<a href="https://res.cloudinary.com/aflds/image/upload/v1777384287/AFLDS_Curtis_Horsley_Amici_Brief_8dc009c782.pdf?updated_at=2026-04-28T13:51:28.754Z" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">amici curiae brief</a> with the United States Supreme Court for both&nbsp;Curtis v. Inslee (25-1119) and&nbsp;Horsley v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals (25-1203) supporting the Petitioners’ requests for writs of certiorari and reversal of the Ninth Circuit’s decisions.The Petitioners in both cases are healthcare workers who were terminated after refusing COVID-19 injections that were required as a condition of employment. In&nbsp;<a href="https://res.cloudinary.com/aflds/image/upload/v1777384287/Curtis_Petition_A_5b0119ff48.pdf?updated_at=2026-04-28T13:51:28.522Z" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Curtis v. Inslee</a>, the Respondents include Washington Governor Jay Inslee and a healthcare system (PeaceHealth) who enforced a statewide COVID shot mandate. In&nbsp;<a href="https://res.cloudinary.com/aflds/image/upload/v1777384287/20260416224948118_Horsley_Petition_44d9c0c08d.pdf?updated_at=2026-04-28T13:51:28.091Z" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Horsley v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals</a>, the Respondents include Kaiser Foundation Hospitals and California state officials who enforced similar policies.AFLDS is asking the Supreme Court to grant certiorari in both cases and determine whether government actors and affiliated institutions may lawfully condition employment on the acceptance of investigational medical products. If left unreviewed, the Ninth Circuit’s rulings permit coercive mandates to stand without strict judicial scrutiny, even where fundamental constitutional rights are implicated.These cases arise from lower court decisions dismissing the claims at the pleading stage. The Ninth Circuit erred in holding that fundamental constitutional rights such as the right to refuse unwanted medical treatments and the right of bodily integrity were not “well established” for purposes of 42 U.S.C. §1983 liability. The Ninth Circuit further erred in finding that mRNA injection mandates survived rational basis review under the&nbsp;Jacobson&nbsp;and&nbsp;Carvalho cases, because it was “rational” for the state to conclude (wrongly) that the experimental COVID-19 injections protected other people. However, this is a false assumption, as solid research now proves that the experimental COVID-19 injections do not protect other people. It was irrational for the court to accept and rely upon false information. The mRNA injection mandates would never survive the higher level of strict scrutiny required by the landmark&nbsp;Cruzan decision.The Petitioners challenged the mandates as violations of their constitutional rights, including bodily integrity, due process, and the right to refuse unwanted medical treatment. The lower courts dismissed both cases before full factual development, effectively shielding government-imposed mandates from meaningful review.AFLDS maintains that these cases present clear constitutional violations. Conditioning employment on the acceptance of investigational medical products, particularly under federal frameworks that require voluntary informed consent, exceeds the lawful authority of state actors and nullifies fundamental rights. These cases reflect a growing pattern across federal courts and demand resolution at the highest level.Further, AFLDS contends that federal law governing investigational drugs preempts state efforts to impose coercive mandates. When refusal results in termination, the right to informed consent is rendered meaningless.“This is not a narrow employment dispute, it is a direct challenge to the constitutional limits on government power,” said AFLDS attorney David Dalia. “The Ninth Circuit has granted state actors authority to impose dangerous investigational medical treatments which do not protect other people while ignoring fundamental constitutional rights, federal law and the Supremacy Clause. When the government can condition a person’s livelihood on submission to an unwanted medical intervention, informed consent no longer exists. The Court should not allow this overreach to stand.”Dr. Simone Gold, Founder and President of America’s Frontline Doctors, added,&nbsp;“These healthcare workers did what every person has the right to do, they made their own medical decisions. For that, they lost their livelihoods. Our rights do not come from the government, and they do not disappear when you go to work. If the government can condition your livelihood on a medical decision, the right to informed consent is gone.”&nbsp;These cases present an opportunity for the Supreme Court to restore constitutional limits on government authority, reaffirm the supremacy of federal law, and protect the fundamental right of individuals to make their own medical decisions.Stay tuned for further updates on these cases 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 Brief for Curtis v. Inslee and Horsley v. Kaiser 

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>

Protecting your Medical
Freedom and Civil Liberties

Press Releases