Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherJoin the NetworkGet StartedSubscribeSupportContact
Search
Close

Out-Of-State Doctors Argue Free Speech Case Before the Third Circuit Challenging New Jersey’s Telehealth Licensure Restrictions

By John W. Kaveney on April 10, 2026
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Young female doctor is talking on mobile phone and using laptop computer working in office alone. Modern devices, medicine and communication concept.
Vitaly Gariev, Unsplash

Last year, we published this blog post about a case filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey by two out-of-state physicians alleging that New Jersey’s telehealth licensure requirements were unlawful because they violated the physicians’ freedom of speech by preventing them from communicating with New Jersey residents without a valid in-state or telehealth license. That case was argued and ultimately dismissed by the District Court on May 12, 2025.

Thereafter, the physicians appealed the matter to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, arguing that the District Court ruled incorrectly and seeking a reversal of the dismissal of their case.
The federal appellate panel in Philadelphia is now tasked with balancing the physicians’ free speech rights and New Jersey’s authority to regulate the practice of medicine. The panel is focused on the key question of how “treatment” should be defined and why a physician’s telemedicine conversation with a patient should not be considered part of the patient’s treatment. The physicians argued that the conversations are merely speech about treatment because you cannot treat cancer by talking. New Jersey’s Attorney General’s Office argued that telemedicine conversations are part of the treatment process and therefore professional conduct that can be regulated.

It remains to be seen how the Third Circuit will rule on the appeal, but the legal precedent and constitutional framework are likely to heavily favor preserving the authority of states to regulate the practice of medicine, which would mean affirming the District Court’s dismissal.

Even if the dismissal is upheld, this case underscores the ongoing push for healthcare across state lines and the efforts of providers to expand their ability to offer services to patients. These efforts will continue to be balanced against states’ obligations to ensure sufficient oversight to protect their residents and regulate the profession. While it is unlikely that the courts will ever eliminate the ability of states to require licenses and oversee the practice of medicine, the various compacts and interstate agreements allowing for telemedicine licenses across state lines are almost certain to continue to expand.

Photo of John W. Kaveney John W. Kaveney

Partner, Healthcare and Litigation

John provides legal guidance to healthcare sector clients on a broad variety of topics, including Medicare/Medicaid reimbursement issues, corporate compliance, data privacy and cybersecurity concerns, healthcare provider licensure and medical staffing concerns, involuntary commitment laws, and general healthcare regulatory…

Partner, Healthcare and Litigation

John provides legal guidance to healthcare sector clients on a broad variety of topics, including Medicare/Medicaid reimbursement issues, corporate compliance, data privacy and cybersecurity concerns, healthcare provider licensure and medical staffing concerns, involuntary commitment laws, and general healthcare regulatory support. He represents a diverse roster of healthcare entities, including for-profit and nonprofit hospitals and health systems, academic medical centers, individual physicians and physician groups, ambulatory surgery centers, ancillary service providers, medical billing companies, skilled nursing and rehabilitation facilities, behavioral health centers and pharmacies.

John advises on Medicaid reimbursement matters before the New Jersey Division of Medical Assistance and Health Services (DMAHS), which administers the state’s Medicaid programs, and handles Medicare reimbursement disputes, both in New Jersey and in numerous other states, before the federal Provider Reimbursement Review Board (PRRB).

In the area of corporate compliance, John supports clients on matters including the implementation of new, and the assessment and improvement of existing, compliance programs. He assists healthcare clients in navigating compliance audits, internal investigations, and governmental investigations related to compliance issues, including potential violations of the federal Stark Law, Anti-Kickback Statute (AKS), and Civil Monetary Penalties law (CMP). He further provides general guidance concerning compliance and regulatory matters under state and federal healthcare laws.

On issues related to information privacy and cybersecurity at the intersection of healthcare law, John assists providers with issues arising under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) and the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act (HITECH). This includes the implementation and assessment of privacy and security policies and procedures to ensure the proper protection and utilization of protected health information (PHI) both by healthcare providers and the business associates with which they contract. In addition, he represents healthcare clients in investigating, reporting, and remediating information breaches and the liability such breaches create under various information privacy and security laws.

John also counsels healthcare providers with professional licensure issues and advises hospitals and health systems regarding their medical staff bylaws and corresponding policies and procedures, as well as assisting with internal investigations of medical staff members and the corresponding disciplinary process. He further provides legal guidance related to New Jersey’s involuntary commitment laws, and provides representation in civil litigation.

John serves as Editor-In-Chief of Healthcare Perspectives, Greenbaum’s blog covering issues of interest to the healthcare industry.

Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.

Contact information:

jkaveney@greenbaumlaw.com | 973.577.1796 | vCard | LinkedIn

For more information visit the Greenbaum, Rowe, Smith & Davis LLP website.

Read more about John W. KaveneyEmail
Show more Show less
  • Posted in:
    Health Care and Life Sciences
  • Blog:
    Healthcare Perspectives
  • Organization:
    Greenbaum, Rowe, Smith & Davis LLP
  • Article: View Original Source

Call us at 1-800-913-0988 or email sales@lexblog.com.

Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
The Library at LexBlog
  • About LexBlog
  • The Field We Built
  • Library at LexBlog
  • Our Beliefs
  • Our Team
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Disclaimer
  • Editorial Policy
  • Terms of Service
  • Get Started
  • Publishing Solutions
  • Compass
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
Copyright © 2026, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo