What Hines v Pardue And Chiles v Salazar Mean For Your Veterinary Practice

Click here to read the complete article
572 – September/October, 2026

By Philip S. Goldberg* Shook, Hardy and Bacon LLP · Washington, DC ©AVMA

Two court cases recently caught the attention of the veterinary world and have sparked debate about the future of the veterinarian-client-patient relationship (VCPR).1,2 Most states require veterinarians to establish VCPRs in person before they are allowed to diagnose or treat an animal, including prescribing medicine, with some limited exceptions for emergency care.

In the first court case, the Texas Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners filed disciplinary charges against a veterinarian for providing care without first establishing the VCPR in person. The veterinarian argued that if all he was doing was talking with people–not prescribing medicine or performing procedures—the in-person VCPR requirement, as applied to him, was an illegal restriction on what he could say and therefore violated the First Amendment.1

That case, Hines v Pardue, is now over. The federal appellate court for that region of the country agreed, ruling he could not be punished solely for talking with people about their pets. In April, the Supreme Court declined to step in, meaning the appellate court ruling stands.

Separately, in March, the Supreme Court decided a different First Amendment case involving professional regulations. This court case had nothing to do with veterinarians, but instead involved a licensed therapist. The therapist engaged only in talk therapy with her clients and challenged a Colorado law limiting what she could say during certain sessions. The Supreme Court agreed with her that this law violated her free speech rights under the First Amendment.2

Some commentators have connected these decisions together and drawn sweeping conclusions about what they mean for veterinarians, namely that the in-person VCPR requirement is dead and telemedicine for veterinarians is now a constitutional right. That conclusion is wrong–and acting on it could risk disciplinary action against your veterinary license.

Here is what actually happened, what it means, and what has not changed.

The Cases in Plain Language

Click here to read the complete article
572 – September/October, 2026