Hines v. Quillivan, 395 F.Supp.3d 857

Ronald Hines, a Texas-licensed veterinarian, provided individualized veterinary advice by email, phone, and videoconference without physically examining animals; Texas law requires a veterinarian-client-patient relationship established by physical examination or timely premises visit (Examination Requirement).
In 2012 the Texas Board disciplined Hines for practicing without such a relationship; Hines accepted an agreed order and stopped offering tele-advice but remains licensed and would resume if permitted.
Hines previously sued (Hines I), claiming the Examination Requirement violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments; the Fifth Circuit held the rule regulates professional conduct (not speech) and affirmed dismissal of his claims.
After Hines I, Texas amended its law to permit physicians to establish practitioner-patient relationships and provide telemedicine without physical exams; the veterinary statute remained unchanged.
Hines filed a new § 1983 suit asserting (1) the veterinary Examination Requirement violates the First Amendment (relying on NIFLA) and (2) violates Equal Protection because doctors may provide telemedicine while veterinarians may not.
The district court reviewed whether NIFLA abrogated Hines I (it did not) and applied rational-basis review to the equal-protection claim, finding a conceivable rational basis for the statutory distinction and dismissing all claims with prejudice.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
First Amendment: Does the Examination Requirement unconstitutionally restrict speech?	Hines: NIFLA rejected any lesser protection for "professional speech," so the veterinary rule burdens speech and should be subject to heightened scrutiny.	Board: The rule regulates professional conduct (establishing a veterinarian-client-patient relationship), not speech content; NIFLA did not disturb that analysis.	Court: Hines I controls; NIFLA did not abrogate it. The rule is a content-neutral regulation of conduct and the First Amendment claim is dismissed.
Equal Protection: Is it irrational for Texas to allow physician telemedicine for humans but bar veterinarian telemedicine for animals?	Hines: The post-Hines I statutory change treating doctors differently renders the veterinary restriction irrational and discriminatory.	Board: Rational reasons exist (animals cannot speak; owners often lack medical knowledge of animal physiology; public health/zoonotic concerns).	Court: Physicians and veterinarians are sufficiently similarly situated for analysis, but the statutory distinction has a conceivable rational basis; equal-protection claim fails.

Hines v. Alldredge, 783 F.3d 197 (5th Cir. 2015) (statute regulating veterinary practice is a content-neutral regulation of professional conduct)
National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra, 138 S. Ct. 2361 (2018) (professional speech is not a separate category immune from ordinary First Amendment analysis)
Gade v. Nat’l Solid Wastes Mgmt. Ass’n, 505 U.S. 88 (1992) (states have broad power to regulate professions and licensing)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility standard for Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (complaint must cross the line from conceivable to plausible)
Heller v. Doe, 509 U.S. 312 (1993) (rational-basis review accepts legislative generalizations and imperfect fits)