1. On September 16, 2025, the Washington Court of
Appeals held that the State Medical Commission's
COVID-19 misinformation enforcement policy
targeting physicians for their public viewpoint
speech did not serve a compelling state interest
and violated the First Amendment. Wilkinson
v. Washington Medical Commission , 576 P.3d
1191 (Wash. Ct. App. 2025). The next day, the
Ninth Circuit refused to reach the merits of
Petitioners' challenge to that same policy and
affirmed dismissal under Younger v. Harris ,
401 U.S. 37 (1971), finding that the policy
served an "important state interest" justifying
abstention. Appendix ("App.") A at 14a. The
questions presented are whether a federal
court may abstain under Younger 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 Medical
Commission's policy is a content- and viewpointbased 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 lessrestrictive alternatives; (d) a continuing First
Amendment violation constitutes irreparable
injury; and (e) enjoining an unconstitutional
policy serves the public interest.

4. Whether Petitioners Dr. Moynihan (speaker),
John Stockton, and Children's Health Defense
(listeners) 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.

5. Whether this Court should grant certiorari
to resolve professional speech protections in
conjunction with Chiles v. Salazar , No. 24-539
(therapist–client speech, argued Oct. 7, 2025),
and Kory v. Bonta , No. 24-932 (physician–patient
speech, cert. pending), as this case presents the
third category: physician public viewpoint speech
on matters of public concern.

Whether the Ninth Circuit's application of Younger abstention doctrine improperly defers judicial review of a state medical board's COVID-19 misinformation policy that potentially violates First Amendment free speech protections