The full 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta agreed this week to hear arguments about the constitutionality of Florida's so-called "Docs vs. Glocks" law, which prohibits doctors from asking patients questions about gun ownership.
Several physicians and doctors' organizations filed suit in federal court in 2011 after the Florida Legislature passed the Firearm Owners Privacy Act, saying the law violated their rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
The U.S. District Court in Florida agreed, finding in 2012 that the law abridged doctors' right to free speech and improperly threatened them with various sanctions -- from fines to revocation of license -- for violating the act. The court permanently enjoined the state from enforcing the law.
The state appealed to the 11th Circuit here in Atlanta, which hears cases from Georgia, Florida and Alabama. The circuit court, one step below the U.S. Supreme Court, assigned a three-judge panel to hear the appeal, and the three judges sided with the state, throwing out the trial court's injunction and ruling that the law is constitutional.
On Wednesday, however, in response to a motion by the plaintiffs, the full court voted to rehear the matter "en banc," or with all 11 judges of the court sitting.
The three-judge panel voted 2-1 in July to uphold the law. But even those judges had had second or third thoughts about the case. An 82-page ruling issued in December began: "We . . . vacate and reconsider our revised opinion in this matter (and) substitute in its place the following opinion."
Writing for the majority in December, Judge Gerald Tjoflat said:
"Society has traditionally accorded physicians a high degree of deference due to their superior knowledge, educational pedigree (and) position of prestige. . . . This deference reaches its apex in the examination room where patients are in a position of relative powerlessness. Patients must place their trust in the physicians’ guidance and submit to the physicians’ authority.
"With this great authority comes great responsibility. To protect patients, society has long imposed upon physicians certain duties and restrictions that define the boundaries of good medical care. In keeping with this tradition, the state passed the act. The Act codifies the commonsense conclusion that good medical care does not require inquiry or record-keeping regarding firearms when unnecessary to a patient’s care — especially not when that inquiry or record-keeping constitutes such a substantial intrusion upon patient privacy — and that good medical care never requires the discrimination or harassment of firearm owners."
The court's decision on Wednesday to hear the matter en banc vacated the the three-judge panel's decision. It did not set a date for the new hearing.
About the Author
