Court Upholds New Jersey Telemedicine Licensing as Constitutionally Permissible Content Regulation

In a decision authored by Judge Thomas Hardiman and joined by Justice Thomas Ambro, a federal court held that New Jersey's telemedicine licensing statute does not infringe doctors' free-speech rights. The court classified the rule as a content-based, viewpoint-neutral restriction rooted in a centuries-old tradition of state medical licensing, tracing its origins to a 1518 English charter and early colonial statutes. Plaintiffs such as Dr. Shannon MacDonald, a Massachusetts-licensed radiation oncologist, and Dr. Paul Gardner, a Pennsylvania-licensed neurosurgeon, claimed that New Jersey's cross-licensing requirements were redundant and imposed unnecessary fees and paperwork.

The court rejected that argument, noting that the state’s streamlined application process imposes only a de minimis burden and serves the important governmental goal of safeguarding public health. Applying intermediate scrutiny, the court found the law narrowly tailored to that interest and therefore constitutional. While the ruling upholds New Jersey's current approach, it suggests that more onerous licensing regimes could fail constitutional review. Attorneys Nathaniel F. Rubin, Matthew J. Platkin, Jeremy M. Feigenbaum, Stephen Ehrlich, Francis X. Baker, and Michael Antenucci represented the defendants.