Stockton v. Brown

Issue: (1) Whether a federal court may abstain under Younger v. Harris when a state appellate court has held the same enforcement policy unconstitutional, thereby eliminating any ongoing “important state interest” on which abstention could rest; (2) whether physician-petitioners subject to ongoing state disciplinary proceedings for their public speech satisfy all justiciability requirements and are entitled to federal adjudication when: (a) they face concrete enforcement actions establishing Article III standing, (b) the state’s own courts have declared the challenged enforcement policy unconstitutional, and (c) the only barrier to adjudication was Younger abstention, which the state court’s ruling has eliminated; (3) whether petitioners are entitled to preliminary injunctive relief where: (a) the State Medical Commission’s policy is a content- and viewpoint-based restriction on public speech subject to strict scrutiny, (b) the state’s own appellate court has held the policy unconstitutional, (c) respondents presented no evidence of narrow tailoring or less restrictive alternatives, (d) a continuing First Amendment violation constitutes irreparable injury, and (e) enjoining an unconstitutional policy serves the public interest; (4) whether petitioners satisfy Article III standing and all other justiciability requirements to challenge an enforcement policy that restricts access to protected speech on matters of public concern; and (5) whether this court should grant certiorari to resolve professional speech protections in conjunction with Chiles v. Salazar (therapist–client speech, argued Oct. 7, 2025), and Kory v. Bonta (physician–patient speech, cert. pending), as this case presents the third category: physician public viewpoint speech on matters of public concern.