Esquire Time
Click Here if you listened. We’d love to know what you think. There is even a spot for feedback! Read along below!
By: Dr. Tracy Farone
While I am certainly not a lawyer, most of us (usually unfortunately) must be aware of laws that affect our professions in order to avoid legal liability. The 2017 FDA mandate that required medically important antibiotics to be moved from over the counter to a veterinary prescription or a Veterinary Feed Directive (VFD), introduced the concept of the Veterinary-Client- Patient- Relationship (VCPR) to apiculture. I thought it would be helpful to share some facts about a couple of recent U.S. Supreme Court rulings affecting parameters around a VCPR. These cases also provide insight into regulation of telemedicine and what is considered free speech and what is considered medical conduct. Not surprisingly, there has been some “fake” news interpretations floating around as a result of these cases. So, let us clear things up.
VCPR
First let us review what a VCPR is and how it affects beekeeping.
The (VCPR) is considered essential for veterinarians to provide appropriate care. It is the legal framework for veterinarians to diagnose and treat animals. The pickle here, for some, is that to establish a VCPR, an in-person visit/exam is initially required. The federal definition of a VCPR is as follows:
A valid veterinarian-client-patient relationship is one in which:
(1) A veterinarian has assumed the responsibility for making medical judgments regarding the health of (an) animal(s) and the need for medical treatment, and the client (the owner of the animal or animals or other caretaker) has agreed to follow the instructions of the veterinarian.
(2) There is sufficient knowledge of the animal(s) by the veterinarian to initiate at least a general or preliminary diagnosis of the medical condition of the animal(s); and
(3) The practicing veterinarian is readily available for follow up in case of adverse reactions or failure of the regimen of therapy. Such a relationship can exist only when the veterinarian has recently seen and is personally acquainted with the keeping and care of the animal(s) by virtue of examination of the animal(s), and/or by medically appropriate and timely visits to the premises where the animal(s) are kept.
This means in order for beekeepers to legally obtain antibiotics for their honey bees, they need to have a veterinarian visit/examine their colonies at least initially. Follow ups can be done via calls/email/texts/telemedicine, but any new problems should have a new visit.
Recent Court Rulings
March 3, 2026, Chiles v. Salazar:
This case focused on first amendment rights generally and was not directly related to beekeeping or veterinary medicine. However, it did have impact on how professional speech is protected under the First Amendment. This was a case out of Colorado challenging a state law that banned therapists from “conversion talk therapy” related to sexual/gender identity. The Supreme Court ruled this law to be a violation of speech of the therapist. However, the therapist did no actions other than “talk therapy” and expressing a viewpoint. Conduct (medical actions) such as prescribing medication, application of medical devices, making diagnoses, or performing surgery could be regulated by the state. So, the Court’s standing was that professionals’ speech cannot be regulated but medical conduct could.
April 20, 2026:
The Supreme Court denied hearing the petition of the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Hines v. Pardue. This means the 5th Circuit Court decision stands.
This case was a specific first amendment challenge to the VCPR with a veterinarian in Texas. This case is now considered resolved after about a decade of litigation (whew!). Here is the background.
In Texas to establish a VCPR a physical exam is specifically required. The veterinarian (defendant in the case) routinely gave veterinary advice to clients via the phone or email but provided no “conduct” (like performing a physical exam, or prescribing medications) in these interactions. The state veterinary board considered the veterinarian giving advice to violate the VCPR and enforced the alleged violation with professional consequences. The 5th Circuit ruled (and by default the Supreme Court agreed) that much like the Chiles v. Salazar case, the state board’s action was a free speech/First Amendment violation. It was ruled that the veterinarian’s advice was only speech, not medical conduct, and speech cannot be regulated or trigger enforcement consequences of the law. Again, the Court’s confirmed that speech cannot be regulated, conduct can.
What do the rulings mean
-The VCPR and related regulations are not eliminated.
-Professional speech ( just giving veterinary advice) is protected by the First Amendment and does not require a VCPR or violate VCPR regulations.
-Speech protected could involve tele-education, tele-advice, and tele-triage. Telemedicine, if it involves conduct, can be regulated.
-Actual veterinary practice actions (conduct) still require a valid VCPR.
-Conduct can be regulated, speech cannot.
-Professional conduct can be regulated at the State (and Federal) level.
-Conduct includes medical actions such as providing diagnosis, prognosis, treatment, vaccines, medications/prescriptions, and surgery.
-Veterinarians must follow state and federal law and can be held legally liable for issues if laws are not followed.
-States can enact regulation over the VCPR, but it must at least meet the federal definition of a VCPR.
-Telemedicine can be used for conducting actions, but only after a VCPR is established.
-Veterinarians can provide speech advice to a client (in the absence of medical action) without an established VCPR, as this is protected under the first amendment.
What do the rulings NOT mean
-A VCPR is no longer needed for medical actions such as prescribing medications.
How these rulings affect apiculture
-Essentially there is no change, a VCPR for antibiotic prescriptions or VFD is required and actually reinforced by these rulings.
-Beekeepers, veterinarians, and States risk legal action if they do not follow the regulations or create laws that contradict federal law.
-I can legally write this article and give you veterinary advice.
References
VCPR Federal code Title 21, Chapter 1, Subchapter E, Part 530, Subpart A, 530.3i can be found here: https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-21/chapter-I/subchapter-E/part-530/subpart-A/section-530.3
Article: “Recent US Supreme Court activity: How do the Chiles and Hines cases impact the in-person VCPR?” Published April 22, 2026. AVMA https://www.avma.org/blog/recent-us-supreme-court-activity
Pardue v. Hines US Supreme Court Brief can be found at: https://www.supremecourt.gov/Docket
PDF/24/24-920/354267/20250328
135435726_24-920%20Amici%20
Brief.pdf
Goldberg, P. S. (2026). What Hines v Pardue and Chiles v Salazar mean for your veterinary practice—and what they don’t: a plain-language guide for veterinary professionals. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association (published online ahead of print 2026). Retrieved Jun 4, 2026, from https://doi.org/10.2460/javma.264.7.833
Chiles v. Salazar, 146 S.Ct. 1010 (2026).
Hines v. Pardue, 117 F.4th 769 (5th Cir. 2024).
For more info on the VCPR: https://nvap.aphis.usda.gov/ABX/abx0220.htm
https://www.avma.org/resources-tools/pet-owners/yourvet/veterinarian-client-patient-relationship-vcpr
