What Hines and Chiles mean for veterinary practice, and what they don’t
Bottom line
A new JAVMA article is trying to lower the temperature around two closely watched court decisions, Hines v. Pardue and Chiles v. Salazar, by explaining what they do, and don’t, mean for veterinary practice. In Hines, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled on September 26, 2024, that Texas, as applied to Dr. Ronald Hines, was directly regulating speech when it punished him for giving veterinary advice without first establishing the required in-person veterinarian-client-patient relationship, and that the rule failed even intermediate First Amendment scrutiny. The court sent the case back with instructions to enter judgment for Hines. In Chiles, the U.S. Supreme Court held on March 31, 2026, that Colorado’s conversion-therapy law, as applied to a counselor’s talk therapy, regulated speech based on viewpoint. The throughline, as Goldberg’s plain-language guide argues, is that these are speech cases, not a wholesale dismantling of states’ authority to regulate professional conduct. (ca5.uscourts.gov)
Why it matters: For veterinary professionals, the practical takeaway is narrower than some headlines suggest. These rulings may strengthen constitutional arguments around teleadvice, teletriage, and other communications that look more like speech than diagnosis, treatment, or prescribing. But they do not automatically erase VCPR requirements, nor do they strip states of authority to regulate the actual practice of veterinary medicine. That distinction is already shaping industry interpretation: the Georgia Veterinary Medical Association’s legal counsel, for example, told members the cases do not “dismantle the VCPR” and said states can still regulate diagnosing, treating, and prescribing as professional conduct. (gvma.net)
What to watch: Expect more state-by-state scrutiny of telemedicine statutes, board rules, and how clearly they separate protected speech from regulated clinical conduct. (gvma.net)
A new JAVMA article is offering veterinary professionals a plain-language guide to two court decisions that have stirred anxiety around telemedicine, free speech, and the veterinarian-client-patient relationship. The key message is a calming one: Hines v. Pardue and Chiles v. Salazar may matter, but they don’t mean every VCPR rule is suddenly unconstitutional, and they don’t hand veterinarians a blank check to diagnose or prescribe without meeting state practice standards. (ca5.uscourts.gov)
The background starts with Hines, a long-running Texas case involving Dr. Ronald Hines, a retired veterinarian who gave online veterinary advice without physically examining the animals involved. Texas law required a VCPR to be established through an in-person exam or a premises visit before practicing veterinary medicine. After years of litigation, the Fifth Circuit ruled in September 2024 that, as applied to Hines, Texas was directly regulating speech, and that the rule could not survive intermediate scrutiny. The court reversed the lower court and remanded with instructions to enter judgment for Hines. (ca5.uscourts.gov)
Chiles came from outside veterinary medicine, but it widened the conversation. On March 31, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court held that Colorado’s law banning conversion therapy, as applied to a counselor’s talk therapy, regulated speech based on viewpoint and required more rigorous First Amendment scrutiny than lower courts had applied. That matters because the opinion reinforces a broader constitutional principle: when a state targets what a licensed professional may say, rather than regulating conduct, courts may look much harder at the rule. (supremecourt.gov)
That said, the available legal record also supports a more limited reading than some social media commentary has suggested. In Hines, the Fifth Circuit did not say states cannot regulate veterinary medicine. In fact, the opinion acknowledged that a physical-examination requirement may be an effective way to protect animal welfare, but held that Texas had not justified this restriction on Hines’s speech under the applicable First Amendment test. In other words, the ruling turned on constitutional fit and framing, not on a declaration that VCPR rules are invalid everywhere. (ca5.uscourts.gov)
Early industry reaction reflects that narrower interpretation. The Georgia Veterinary Medical Association’s legal counsel recently told members that the cases have been widely misunderstood, arguing that they protect general teleadvice and teletriage while leaving intact the state’s authority to regulate diagnosis, treatment plans, medical devices, and prescribing as conduct. Georgia’s analysis is plainly advocacy, not neutral doctrine, but it’s still useful as a sign of how organized veterinary groups are already translating these rulings into compliance guidance for clinics. (gvma.net)
Why it matters: For veterinary professionals, the biggest implication is operational, not abstract. Practices should be careful about how they define and document teleadvice, teletriage, telemedicine, diagnosis, and prescribing under their own state law. If a state framework blurs ordinary communication with the practice of medicine, it may invite legal challenge. But if a framework clearly distinguishes protected speech from regulated clinical conduct, it may be on firmer footing. That means compliance teams, practice leaders, and state VMAs may need to revisit website language, client communications, triage workflows, and telehealth policies, especially in states with older statutes that predate today’s digital care models. This is an inference from the rulings and state reaction, rather than an explicit holding of either case. (ca5.uscourts.gov)
What to watch: The next phase is likely to play out in state legislatures, licensing boards, and future litigation, not in a single nationwide reset. Watch for more guidance from AVMA and state VMAs, possible updates to telemedicine statutes, and new legal challenges in states where VCPR rules are written broadly enough to capture speech that looks more like advice than treatment. (ca5.uscourts.gov)