This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

Physicians who were threatened and abused by various tyrannical credentialing boards that sought to suppress anything but the official government story line about COVID-19 have been given the go-ahead by the courts to sue.

The case was brought by the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons Education Foundation against the American Board of Internal Medicine, the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology, the American Board of Family Medicine and the secretary of the Department of Homeland Security over various situations in which those organizations threatened or actually acted against doctors because of what they said about COVID.

Their medical opinions essentially contradicted the government's talking points about taking various experimental shots, which evidence now shows have been extremely damaging to thousands of people.

The challenge focused on the coordinated campaigns to "censor and chill the speech of physicians," with special targeting of those who criticized the unfounded positions taken by White House adviser Anthony Fauci, lockdowns, masks and more.

A district judge had claimed that the AAPS "lacked standing," but a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit has reversed that dismissal.

It's headed back to the lower courts for discovery, and potentially a full trial.

A report in the Federalist documented the ruling.

"The AAPS Educational Foundation brought the case because of a series of physicians who were being threatened with loss of their board certification because they had made comments that were either critical of the COVID0 vaccines or that advocated for early treatment with repurposed drugs," explained AAPS chief Jane Orient.

"Particularly bad were the three defendants of the internal board who were also engaged in threatening physicians who supported the overturning of Roe v. Wade or had anything to say about abortion and its side effects."

The case also cited the egregious censorship schemes that were being developed by Homeland Security’s Disinformation Governance Board which, Orient explained, "was devoted to seeking out and finding ‘disinformation,’ ‘malinformation,’ and, or pressuring people, including those on specialty boards and social media companies, to take action."

Public outrage that the government would assemble such a force prompted that particular coalition to be disbanded, but that doesn't mean that scheme has been abandoned.

When physicians made public comments, press comments, testified in hearings – and their statements did not align with the Biden administration's political agenda – they were threatened with loss of their credentials, which in many cases could mean the loss of their income.

The power structure simply labeled, without evidence, dissenting opinions as "misinformation, disinformation, and malinformation," the case charged.

One facing punishment was Dr. Peter McCullough, a professor of medicine for decades, who was forced into independent practice over his views after those in "academic practice" refused to allow him free speech.

He questioned, during a state legislative hearing, the experimental shots, and the ABIM later adopted a rule about "misinformation" and retroactively applied it to him, the report said.

McCullough confirmed to The Federalist he provided documentation and evidence regarding his opinions on COVID, but the organization refused to accept it.

The power structure lined up against the dissenting doctors including those credentialing agencies as well as insurance companies that would refuse to provide compensation for treatment if the doctor's opinion differed from theirs.

Lawyer Andrew Schlafly, litigating for AAPS, said, "Viewpoint-based censorship of freedom of speech is one of the most important issues today, and essential to the future of both our country and the ability of patients to obtain quality medical care. It is vital that we restore freedom of speech and end improper interference with it. Physicians must be able to speak candidly about issues of public concern without fear of retaliation."