|
This week’s newsletter focuses on ongoing litigation regarding access to and the manipulation of health-related information.
Washington State Medical Association et al v. Kennedy et al (Docket No. 2:25-cv-00955)
Plaintiffs, a group of organizations focused on equitable healthcare access and resources, filed a complaint in the Federal District Court of Washington in Seattle on May 20, 2025, seeking a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief against Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., HHS, and several other federal agencies for the deletion of federal webpages and datasets relating to health. According to the Plaintiffs, “dozens (if not more) of taxpayer-funded webpages, databases, and other crucial resources have vanished since January 20, 2025,” including information related to “pregnancy risks, public health datasets, information about opioid-use disorders, and many other valuable resources.” These resources are used by “the scientific community to monitor and respond to disease outbreaks, assist physicians and other clinicians in daily care, and inform the public about a wide range of public health issues.”
The deletions were made in response to two executive orders from President Trump. The first, Executive Order 14168, directed executive agencies to take actions, such as “remov[ing] ‘all statements, policies, regulations, forms, communications, or other internal and external messages that promote or otherwise inculcate gender ideology.’” The second, Executive Order 14151, directed officials to “terminate mandates, policies, programs, preferences, and activities related to diversity, equity, and inclusion, and accessibility.” The defendant agencies began deleting the webpages and other internet resources starting on January 31, 2025 in an effort to comply with these Executive Orders. However, the Plaintiffs note that the agencies did not appear to provide the public with guidance regarding the resources that had been deleted.
In their Complaint, the Plaintiffs allege that the deletions were arbitrary and capricious and made in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The Plaintiffs also claim that the deletions violated the Paperwork Reduction Act, which requires federal agencies to “ensure that the public has timely and equitable access to the agency’s public information” and to “provide adequate notice when initiating, substantially modifying, or terminating significant information dissemination products,” and the Public Health Services Act, which requires HHS to conduct, promote, render assistance, and encourage research and investigations for physical and mental health and make this information publicly available. The Plaintiffs further allege that the Defendants violated the separation of powers as they implemented the President’s attempt to exercise authority that he did not have.
This case is at its earliest stages. A ruling on the merits may have significant implications for the public’s right to access important health information.
Finn et al v. Global Engagement Center et al (Docket No. 3:25-cv-00543)
Plaintiffs, a group of six “healthcare professionals, researchers, and advocates who have built substantial online presences and businesses centered around health freedom, informed consent, and discussion of alternative approaches to conventional medicine,” filed a lawsuit in the Federal District Court of Florida on May 15, 2025. The Defendants include a group of government officials, non-profit organizations, such as the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH), and social media companies. The Plaintiffs claim that in 2021, the Defendants collaborated in a “coordinated censorship campaign” to suppress their “constitutionally protected speech” on different social media platforms through “censor[ing],” “de-platform[ing]” their content, and “shadow-ban[ning]” them based on their expressed views regarding public health policies, particularly on vaccination safety and efficacy.
According to the Plaintiffs, the actions allegedly taken by the federal officials during the pandemic to suppress their speech violated the First Amendment’s protections for free speech and the press. They also claim that the government violated their right to due process under the Fifth Amendment because they were never notified that their “speech was being targeted for suppression” and that they had “no opportunity to challenge the characterization of their content as ‘misinformation.’” Plaintiffs further claim the government violated their rights to equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment as well as their Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches. The Plaintiffs additionally claim that the CCDH’s report naming the Plaintiffs as part of the “Disinformation Dozen,” who were “responsible for ‘up to 65% of all ‘anti-vaccine content’ online,” constituted defamation.
Some of the allegations made in this complaint echo those raised in Murthy v. Missouri, in which the plaintiffs likewise charged that the Biden Administration attempted to suppress speech relating to the pandemic. In 2023, the Supreme Court ruled that the state plaintiffs lacked standing in that case. Because the Plaintiffs in Finn are individuals who claim individual harm and seek damages, standing may pose less of a hurdle. What will be especially interesting to watch in this case is whether the Trump Administration aggressively defends a lawsuit that focuses on actions allegedly taken by the Biden Administration during the pandemic.
| 
