A federal judge on Wednesday stayed a new California law that penalizes doctors for spreading false information about COVID-19 to their patients.

At the same time, the senior judge William Shub said the definition of the measure of “misinformation” was “unconstitutionally vague” under the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment.

A group of doctors, along with two organizations, sued government officials in separate lawsuits in U.S. District Court in Sacramento. They asked Shub to stop enforcing the rule while their cases continue in court.

The the right entered into force on January 1. It says doctors who spread false information about treatment options and vaccines for COVID-19, whether they do so intentionally or not, can be disciplined for “unprofessional conduct.”

In Wednesday’s order, Shub criticized the legal definition of “misinformation,” which is “false information that is contrary to current scientific consensus and inconsistent with the standard of care.”

Shub, who called the definition “nonsense” at a court hearing Monday, said in Wednesday’s ruling that it was “grammatically inconsistent.”

In addition, Shub’s order also criticized the phrase “modern scientific consensus,” saying it has no established meaning in the field of medicine.

“The statute does not clarify the meaning of this term, leaving many important questions open,” the order said. “For example, who determines whether there is a consensus? If consensus exists, among whom should it exist (eg, medical practitioners, or professional organizations, or medical researchers, or public health officials, or perhaps a combination)?”

This lack of clarity, the judge added, makes it impossible to determine what the new law prohibits.

The legislation stems from House Bill AB 2098, introduced last year by Rep. Evan Lowe, D-San Jose. It said “the spread of misinformation and disinformation about the COVID-19 vaccines has undermined public confidence and put lives at serious risk.” As of Monday Medical Board of California and Osteopathic Medical Board of California According to representatives of the council, no one was brought to disciplinary responsibility in accordance with the law. Doctors who are recognized as unprofessional may lose their licenses.

When Gov. Gavin Newsom signed the bill into law in September he called it “narrow” and said it only applies to conversations doctors have with their patients about COVID-19. Newsom, Attorney General Rob Bonto and representatives of the boards that discipline doctors of medicine and doctors of osteopathy filed lawsuits over the cases.

Opponents have raised free speech concerns in their challenge to the law. They said it created a “chilling effect” on conversations between doctors and patients because of the threat of possible discipline. In court Monday, a lawyer representing five doctors in one of the cases said the rule is meant to silence people who hold views that differ from the state’s.

However, Shub did not address the constitutionality of the law under the First Amendment in the order. Instead, it sufficed to say that concern over its vagueness delayed the rule.