While we U.S. Supreme Court practitioners and observers await decisions in several already-argued cases of great significance regarding the separation of powers and executive authority, the Court this morning issued a per curiam opinion in the somewhat obscure case of John Doe v. Dynamic Physical Therapy, LLC.
While the case might have slipped below the radar of most of us, its firm holding is likely to gain attention among litigators, especially in the area of health care. As the Court noted, the state of Louisiana immunizes health care providers from civil liability during public health emergencies. This immunity led the Louisiana Court of Appeal to hold that state law barred the plaintiff’s federal claims, a position the entire Supreme Court flatly rejected.
Defining the scope of liability under state law is the State’s prerogative. But a State has no power to confer immunity from federal causes of action. See, e.g., Howlett v. Rose, 496 U. S. 356, 383 (1990); Haywood v. Drown, 556 U. S. 729, 740 (2009); Williams v. Reed, 604 U. S. 168, 174 (2025).
Accordingly, state judges must follow federal law, “any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding.” U. S. Const., Art. VI, cl. 2. A plaintiff’s claims might ultimately fail on federal grounds—which is a matter for the state court to decide in the first instance—but a grant of immunity from state law cannot extend such immunity to matters of federal law.
[View source.]
