Eighth Circuit Revives Minnesota Doctor’s First Amendment Lawsuit Against Medical Board
- September 18, 2026
- Written by AHLA Legal Staff
Dr. Scott Jensen, who was the Republican nominee for Minnesota Governor in 2022, can proceed with a lawsuit against the state’s medical practice board alleging its repeated investigations of him stemming from his public opposition to COVID-19 mandates and shutdowns violated the First Amendment, the Eighth Circuit held September 15.
Reversing a lower court decision, the Eighth Circuit found Jensen alleged “concrete and particularized” injuries—in the form of the time and costs he incurred to respond to the Minnesota Board of Medical Practice’s probes as well as the chilling effect on his speech as a candidate—to support standing at the motion-to-dismiss stage of the litigation.
Spanning the start of the pandemic until mid-2022, the board initiated four investigations—one of them lasting more than a year—against Jensen after receiving 18 complaints that he was “spreading misinformation” about COVID and posed a “danger to public health.”
Jensen sued alleging multiple constitutional claims and seeking an injunction preventing future interference with his speech made outside the physician-patient relationship, as well as compensatory damages. The district court granted the board’s motion to dismiss for lack of standing.
The district court set the “bar too high” in holding Jensen failed to demonstrate standing, the Eighth Circuit said.
Jensen alleged “classic pocketbook injuries”—i.e., the time and money he spent, including hiring a lawyer at one point, to “cooperate fully” with the board’s investigations, which he was obligated to do under state law.
He also alleged that the investigations chilled his speech during the run-up to the 2022 election to avoid triggering new probes of his medical license. General allegations that Jensen changed his message, declined multiple invitations to public speaking events, and clarified his remarks were as a candidate not a physician were enough to support standing on his First Amendment claim.
“The chilling effect he continues to experience also qualifies as an ‘ongoing’ injury supporting injunctive relief,” the appeals court said, noting Jensen is again a candidate for public office. “It is hard to imagine a situation in which the ‘threat of future enforcement’ could be more credible,” the Eighth Circuit added.
However, the appeals court declined to rule on the merits and remanded to the district court for further proceedings.
Jensen v. Minn. Bd. of Med. Practice, No. 25-1812 (8th Cir. Sept. 15, 2026).