Justices consider whether Texas Medical Board rule blocked candidate Gonzales from campaign speech

The Supreme Court of Texas on Wednesday heard argument in Ray Gonzales v. Texas Medical Board over whether Gonzales may obtain judicial review and prospective relief after the board issued a cease-and-desist order about his use of the title "doctor" on the campaign trail. Petitioner counsel said Gonzales sought to "talk to voters about how his credentials support his public policy" and that a state agency—s process constrained his ability to do so. Counsel argued the board—s regulatory path (Texas Administrative Code §187.83 was cited in briefing) created an avenue for judicial review that did not mirror the Administrative Procedure Act's deadlines, and that Gonzales raised "as-applied" and ultra vires claims with prospective consequences for his planned candidacy. The Medical Board's counsel replied that Gonzales knew and used APA procedures: the record shows Gonzales filed a motion for rehearing and referenced the APA in filings, and the agency argued the suit was untimely because Gonzalez had missed the statute's filing deadline for judicial review. "They knew. They knew the APA applied here," counsel for the board told the court, pointing to a motion for rehearing filed 25 days after the board's order. Justices pressed both sides on legal doctrines that determine where plaintiffs may bring challenges to agency action: whether the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act and the district court can adjudicate jurisdictional questions about an agency's authority; whether an ultra vires claim must name individual officers (Heinrich line of cases) and seek prospective injunctive relief; and where Patel v. Texas (as-applied prospective relief on First Amendment grounds) applies. Counsel for Gonzales argued the agency—s cease-and-desist process was not a contested-case adjudication under the APA because there were no neutral adjudicators, no pretrial discovery and a summary procedure; that difference matters because the APA's deadline for judicial review would bar timely relief needed to protect future campaign speech. Counsel for the board argued the record shows Gonzales relied on the APA, that his pleadings sought relief tied to the board's order rather than a standalone prospective facial challenge, and that the proper remedy for jurisdictional defects is dismissal rather than iterative amendment. The parties and the justices also discussed statutory provisions invoked by the board, including the Medical Practice Act and the Healing Arts Identification Act (HAIA), which restrict use of professional titles by non‑licensed persons and require identification of the basis for a "doctor" title in certain contexts. The court did not announce a decision at argument; the case was submitted.