APA, the AMA, and several other physician organizations had submitted an amicus curiae brief to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit urging the justices to reject the state's attempt to revive the law after the lower court decision, pointing out that asking about gun ownership and guns in the home is an important screening tool, like asking about substances of abuse, smoking, and eating habits, for example. But in its July 25 ruling, the appeals court found that the law did not violate free-speech rights but was instead a "legitimate regulation" of medical conduct in the service of providing patients with "good medical care." The majority of the appeals court panel ruled that the law "simply codifies that good medical care does not require inquiry or record keeping regarding firearms when unnecessary to a patient's care.... Any burden the Act places on physician speech is thus entirely incidental." The justices also said that patients' right to privacy regarding gun ownership takes precedence over physicians' right to inquire about this subject.
Paul Appelbaum, M.D., past chair of the APA Committee on Judicial Action and the Dollard Professor of Psychiatry, Medicine, and Law at Columbia University, told Psychiatric News, "The 11th Circuit’s decision upholding Florida’s gag law is troubling because it is one more example of courts and legislatures attempting to control what doctors say to patients. Here, the judges have decided that asking routinely about the presence of guns is contrary to good medical practice and hence can be prohibited by the state. When courts set the standards for clinical interactions rather than leaving that task in medical hands, the inevitable result is harmful to the public’s health."