Litigation Actions
Cases
NEW
IDAHO
CHD Uses Federal Disability Laws to Fight Back Against Cell Tower in Eagle, ID
Case Name: Henry Allen v. Verizon Wireless et al.
Court: DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO – SOUTHERN DIVISION
Attorneys: W. Scott McCollough
Summary
On Dec. 12, 2023, Henry “Hank” Allen, whose Electromagnetic Sensitivities (EMS) amount to a disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), sued Verizon Wireless and other companies involved in the operation of a cell tower near his home that triggered life-threatening cardiac episodes that began in April 2021, soon after the tower was activated.
Allen’s case is the first in a series of strategic cases funded by Children’s Health Defense that leverages federal disability laws, specifically the ADA, to petition the courts for reasonable accommodations for clients who have been disabled by RF radiation emitted by a cell tower near their homes.
EMS is a federally recognized condition — protected under the ADA — in which individuals suffer adverse health effects due to exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMF). According to the lawsuit, funded by Children’s Health Defense (CHD), the high levels of radiofrequency (RF) radiation emitted from the cell tower caused Allen’s atrial fibrillations and other EMS symptoms, including tinnitus, extreme fatigue, impaired memory and vision, sleep disruption and flu-like symptoms.
Press Release
Related Articles
PENNSYLVANIA
Parental Consent in Vaccination of Minor Child in PA
Case Name: Children’s Health Defense et al. vs. The City of Philadelphia et al.
Court: DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Attorneys: Tricia Lindsay, Mary Holland, Ray Flores
Summary
On Nov. 1, 2023, CHD and a group of concerned parents filed a lawsuit challenging a Philadelphia law that allows minors to consent to vaccination without their parents’ knowledge. This legislation that was initially enacted in 2007 violates informed consent, freedom of religion, parental rights, and due process, implicating both the United States Constitution and the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. CHD intends to end this practice as it did in Washington, D.C.
Related Articles
- CHD Sues Philadelphia Over Law Allowing 11-Year-Olds to Consent to Vaccines Without Parents’ Consent
NEW JERSEY
CHD Fights Verizon Wireless Over 5G Cell Towers on the Jersey Shore
Case Name: Verizon Wireless v. The County of Monmouth, New Jersey et al.
Court: U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
Attorneys: W. Scott McCollough, Kimberly M. Mack Rosenberg
Summary
On Sept. 27, 2023, CHD filed a motion to intervene and a supporting memorandum on behalf of its Monmouth County members in a lawsuit brought by Verizon Wireless against Monmouth County for denying the telecom giant’s applications to build nine 5G towers on a stretch of boardwalk along the Jersey Shore.
Verizon Wireless contends that the county unlawfully denied its application because the Telecommunications Act of 1996 prohibits state and local regulation of environmental effects of radiofrequency (RF) radiation emissions from wireless infrastructure, as long as the emissions are within the (outdated) Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) RF exposure guidelines. Since the proposed 5G tower locations are home to multiple endangered species, CHD lawyers seek to challenge this notion and Verizon’s claim that the FCC’s rules and Telecommunications Act of 1996 preempt state and federal law on threatened and endangered species.
Press Release
Related Articles
- CHD Asks to Intervene in Verizon Lawsuit Against New Jersey County That Denied Telecom Giant’s Permits for 5G Towers
- Malibu City Officials Accused of ‘Disturbing’ Deceit Over 5G Fire Safety Measures
CALIFORNIA
CHD Sues Los Angeles Over ‘Smart City’ Plan Documents
Case Name: Children’s Health Defense et al. v. City of Los Angeles et al.
Court: SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Attorneys: Gregory J. Glaser, Ray L. Flores II
Summary
On July 24, 2023, CHD sued the City of Los Angeles (LA) for failing to respond to CHD’s request for documents related to LA’s smart city initiatives. According to the complaint, key departments in the city government violated the California Public Records Act (CPRA) by failing to promptly respond to CHD’s request to produce electronic records related to smart city planning. While most of the city’s 20 departments involved in smart city planning provided the documents CHD requested, the Information Technology Agency, Bureau of Street Lighting, LA World Airports, Bureau of Street Services, Bureau of Engineering and the LA Police Department, which may have highly sensitive information regarding the smart city rollout, did not produce the requested documents.
The SmartLA 2028 initiative, launched in 2020, promises to solve a host of “urban challenges” and create “a highly digital and connected city” by 2028. The plan includes an array of digital infrastructure, including a surveillance camera network that can capture individual face and voice signatures and be used for law enforcement and third-party marketing. It also includes technologies like Amazon Sidewalk, digital payment platforms for city services, artificial intelligence for city contracting and more. CHD lawyers argue that this data collection violates LA residents’ Fourth Amendment rights to be secure from unreasonable searches and seizures of property and other surveillance by the government and raises particular concerns about what the city’s partners — Big Tech companies — are doing with that data.
Related Articles
New York
Dicapua v. City of New York, Article 78 Class Action
Case Name: Stephanie Dicapua et al., v. City of New York, and the New York City Department of Education
Court: NEW YORK SUPREME COURT RICHMOND COUNTY
Attorneys: Sujata Gibson, Michael Sussman
Alleging a continuing pattern of discrimination inflicted in violation of the New York State Human Rights Law (“NYSHRL”), the New York City Human Rights Law (“NYCHRL”) and Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules (“CPLR”), this proposed class action lawsuit challenges DOE’s discrimination against employees who were denied reasonable religious accommodation.
Related to the Kane case [LINK TO KANE below]. The federal court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the State law claim. Plaintiffs brought their preserved claims in state court, asserting that the City of New York, together with the New York City Department of Education, engaged in widespread religious discrimination by adopting and enforcing a facially unconstitutional religious accommodation policy and failing to remedy the issue after the Second Circuit Court of Appeals held that the policies violate the U.S. Constitution.
On July 19, 2023, the Hon. Ralph J. Porzio, Supreme Court Richmond County, held that the Citywide Panel’s denial of religious accommodation to the ten original Kane/Keil plaintiffs was arbitrary and capricious, and plaintiffs must be reinstated with back pay.
The Court declined to certify a class action and denied portions of the motion seeking further relief. A motion to reargue the further claims and to reconsider certification of the class is currently pending before the Court, as is a motion by Defendants to reargue the denial of their motion to dismiss.
The City has also appealed the decision to the New York State Appellate Division, Second Department, and plaintiffs cross-appealed as to the portions of the decision declining to grant further relief. Briefing is due within six months, pending any requests for an extension. The motion to reargue will be heard in the Supreme Court, Richmond County, on Dec. 15, 2023.
Other:
- ‘Huge’ Victory: New York Supreme Court Reinstates 10 Teachers Fired for Refusing COVID Vaccine
- NYC teachers seek class-action status in lawsuit over COVID-19 vaccine firings | PIX11
- Teachers Fired for Declining Covid Shot Back in Court – Staten Island NY July 18
- NYC Teachers Fired for Declining Covid Shot Show Up Strong in Staten Island Court
Louisiana
RFK Jr. et al. v. Biden et al. Class Action
Case Name: Robert F. Kennedy Jr, Children’s Health Defense et al. v. Joseph R. Biden Jr. et al.
Court: U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA, MONROE DIVISION
Attorneys: Jed Rubenfeld, G. Shelly Maturin II
On March 24, 2023, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., and Children’s Health Defense (CHD) et al. filed a class action lawsuit against President Joseph Biden and numerous other federal officials and agencies in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, Monroe Division. The complaint alleges that the defendants have colluded with, encouraged and pressured social media companies to suppress speech that the government does not want the public to hear and to silence specific speakers who are critical of federal policy.
This proposed class action, brought on behalf of all Americans who access the news from social media platforms, seeks nationwide injunctive relief on behalf of those Americans. Instead of seeking monetary damages, the claim asks the court to declare that the Defendants’ conduct violates the First Amendment and to prohibit them from engaging in any form of social media censorship in the future.
Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction was filed on April 12, 2023, and is pending.
On July 24, 2023, a Federal judge issued an order consolidating this case with Missouri v. Biden.
Press Release
Related Articles
District Of Columbia
COVID-19 VACCINE BATTERY LAWSUIT
Case Name: McNeil v. Rethy
Court: SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Attorney: Matthew D. Hardin
This lawsuit by a Washington D.C. mother, with the support of CHD, alleges that a doctor vaccinated two of her children for COVID-19 without her consent. The lawsuit was filed in Superior Court for the District of Columbia against Janine A. Rethy, M.D., M.P.H., seeking damages for false imprisonment, battery and fraud based on Dr. Rethy failing to obtain parental consent for vaccination and tricking the children by falsely informing them that the COVID-19 vaccine was mandatory for school attendance and that they could not lawfully decline it if they wanted to attend school.
The case is scheduled for mediation on Feb. 7, 2024.
Related Articles
District Of Columbia
CDC FOIA Litigation
Case Name: Children’s Health Defense v. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Attorneys: Mary Holland, Ray Flores, Risa Evans
According to the co-sponsored VAERS “Standard Operating Procedures” (SOP) for COVID-19, dated Jan. 29, 2021, the CDC and the FDA will coordinate monitoring for “potential new safety concerns for COVID-19 vaccines” by performing routine VAERS surveillance. Specifically, the CDC will run proportional reporting ratio (PRR) data mining on a weekly basis, or as needed to see if there is an indication that the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines cause more adverse events than vaccines generally considered by the CDC to be safe.
CHD seeks the records of all PRR conducted by the CDC related to COVID-19 from Oct. 1, 2021, to the present, along with all communications within the CDC and with the FDA about the PRR results and follow-up investigations required by the SOP done in connection with those results. The lawsuit also seeks daily email alerts from VAERS contractors hired by the CDC listing identification numbers for all adverse events of special interest, which are events requiring further investigation.
Related Articles
District Of Columbia
FDA FOIA Litigation
Case Name: Children’s Health Defense v. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Attorneys: Mary Holland, Ray Flores, Risa Evans
The FDA promised to vigilantly monitor the safety of COVID-19 injections, and to assure safety. CHD filed a Freedom of Information Act “FOIA” request on July 27, 2022, seeking records of the FDA’s monitoring of VAERS for early warning safety signals. Even after multiple efforts and an administrative appeal, the FDA failed to provide the records.
CHD has now filed a complaint, asking the federal District Court for the District of Columbia to compel the FDA’s compliance with the Freedom of Information Act.
Related Articles
District Of Columbia
NIH FOIA Litigation
Case Name: Children’s Health Defense v. National Institutes of Health (NIH)
Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Attorneys: Ray Flores, Risa Evans
Children’s Health Defense (CHD) sued the National Institutes of Health (NIH) for failing to respond to CHD’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for documents related to correspondence between NIH researchers and individuals who contacted the NIH regarding adverse events they experienced after receiving the COVID-19 vaccine.
The NIH, in early July 2023, withdrew its motion to dismiss the lawsuit and agreed to begin providing responsive documents.
Related Articles
- CHD Sues NIH Over Failure to Comply With FOIA Request for Correspondence With COVID Vaccine Injury Victims
- In Surprise Reversal, NIH to Hand Over Communications Between Agency and People Injured by COVID Shots
District Of Columbia
PREP Act Litigation
Case Name: Estate of George Watts Jr., v. Lloyd J. Austin III
Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Attorneys: Ray Flores
CHD is supporting a lawsuit brought on behalf of the family of a 24-year-old man who died from complications of COVID-19 vaccine-induced myocarditis, which alleges that the U.S. Department of Defense engaged in “willful misconduct” when it claimed Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine authorized for emergency use was “safe and effective” while it oversaw the supply and distribution of COVID-19 vaccines.
This groundbreaking case may provide a path for other COVID vaccine-injured individuals to seek recovery from their injuries.
Related Articles
- Family Opposes Motion to Dismiss Lawsuit Against DOD Over Death of 24-Year-Old From COVID-Vaccine-Related Myocarditis
- Breaking: Family of 24-Year-Old Who Died From COVID Vaccine Sues DOD in ‘Groundbreaking Case’
TEXAS
‘Trusted News Initiative’ Antitrust Litigation
Case Name: Children’s Health Defense et al. v. The Washington Post et al.
Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
Attorneys: G. Shelly Maturin, II, Jed Rubenfeld, John W. Howard, Scott Street, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (volunteer counsel)
On May 31, 2023, CHD and other plaintiffs filed a new antitrust action against members of the “Trusted News Initiative” (TNI) in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana.
TNI is a recently formed, self-proclaimed “industry partnership” joining together some of the world’s largest legacy news organizations, including the Washington Post, the Associated Press, Reuters and TNI’s founder, the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), as well as the biggest Big Tech platforms including Facebook, Google, Twitter, and Microsoft for collusively censoring online news. The TNI exists to, in its own words, “choke off” and “stamp out” online news reporting that the TNI or any of its members peremptorily deem “misinformation.” TNI members have targeted and suppressed completely accurate online reporting by non-mainstream news publishers concerning both COVID-19 (on matters including treatments, immunity, lab leak, vax injury, and lockdowns/mandates) and U.S. elections (such as the Hunter Biden laptop story).
Federal antitrust law prohibits “group boycotts – collusion to deny critical facilities or market access to rivals. Group boycotts are per se illegal, and the complaint alleges that the TNI is a massive group boycott. Since its formation, the TNI has successfully denied critical market facilities—i.e., the world’s dominant social media platforms—to rival news publishers whose reporting competes with and challenges TNI orthodoxy. Under antitrust law, the victims of a group boycott—like the Plaintiffs in our case—are entitled to treble damages.
CHD’s lawsuit aims to vindicate the freedom of speech and of the press. The Defendants are the BBC, The Washington Post, the Associated Press, and Reuters.
Related Articles
- Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Files Antitrust Lawsuit Against Legacy Media for Efforts to Exclude Rivals From Internet Platforms
- CHD Files New Action Against Legacy Media Organizations For Antitrust and Free Speech Violations
CALIFORNIA
Lawsuit to Stop California Law That Censors Doctors’ Speech (AB 2098)
Case Name: Hoang et al. v. Bonta et. al.
Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Attorneys: Rick Jaffe, Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
Children’s Health Defense is sponsoring a lawsuit brought on behalf of plaintiffs Dr. LeTrinh Hoang, Physicians for Informed Consent and Children’s Health Defense – California Chapter against California Attorney General Rob Bonta and the Osteopathic Medical Board of California over a new law that subjects the state’s doctors to discipline for sharing “misinformation” or “disinformation” about COVID-19 with their patients.
The judge enjoined California Gov. Gavin Newsom, Attorney General Rob Bonta and California Medical and Osteopathic Boards from enforcing California Assembly Bill 2098 (AB 2098) against Plaintiffs and their members. In his 30-page opinion, Senior U.S. District Judge William Shubb determined the defendants in the case provided “no evidence that ‘scientific consensus’ has any established technical meaning,” and that the law provides “no clarity” on the meaning of the word “misinformation,” and found the “plaintiffs have established a likelihood of success on the grounds of their Fourteenth Amendment vagueness challenges.”
Arguments on the appeal of a similar but separate case, which may have an impact on this injunction, were heard July 17, 2023, in the 9th Circuit, and a decision from that Court is pending.
Preliminary injunction Jan 25, 2023
Related Articles
- Doctors Speak Out Against ‘Medical Totalitarianism’ as Newsom Signs Bill That Punishes Doctors for COVID ‘Misinformation’
- CHD Attorneys File Federal Lawsuit to Stop California Law That Punishes Doctors for COVID ‘Misinformation’
- CHD Files Motion to Prevent California From Punishing Doctors for COVID ‘Misinformation’ Until Lawsuit Is Settled
- Breaking: Federal Judge Blocks California Law Punishing Doctors for ‘COVID Misinformation’
NEW YORK
NYS Healthcare Workers Vaccine Mandate
Case Name: MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS FOR INFORMED CONSENT v. BASSET, et al.
Court: NY STATE SUPREME COURT, ONONDAGA COUNTY AND THE APPELLATE DIVISION, FOURTH DEPARTMENT
Attorney: Sujata Gibson, Philip Fornaci
On Oct. 20, 2022, Medical Professionals for Informed Consent filed a lawsuit, supported by CHD, challenging the New York State COVID-19 vaccine mandate for healthcare professionals, alleging they had lost — or were at imminent risk of losing — their jobs. Several of the plaintiffs had religious objections to receiving the vaccine, but the mandate did not recognize those exemptions.
Judge Gerard Neri of the New York State Supreme Court in Onondaga County heard oral arguments in the case on Jan. 5, 2023, in Syracuse, N.Y. The lawsuit questioned several aspects of the legality of New York’s vaccine mandate for healthcare workers and illustrated the harm caused by the mandate in the context of an ongoing shortage of healthcare workers in the state.
On Jan. 13, 2023, in a groundbreaking decision, Judge Neri held that the healthcare worker COVID-19 vaccine mandate for healthcare workers is now “null, void, and of no effect.” The court held that the NYS Dept. of Health lacked the authority to impose such a mandate as this power is reserved to the state legislature. Furthermore, the court found that the mandate was “Orwellian” and “arbitrary and capricious.” Since as COVID-19 vaccines do not stop transmission, no rational basis for a mandate exists.
The state appealed. At oral arguments, the state announced that in lieu of making arguments on the merits, the NYSDOH intended to recommend that the mandate be repealed. The NYSDOH argued that this mooted the appeal and that the underlying victory should be vacated as well.
On October 4, 2023, the regulation was officially repealed. On October 11, 2023, the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, dismissed the appeal as moot but declined to overturn the lower court’s decision. Judge Neri’s January 13, 2023, landmark decision is, therefore, the law in New York State and sets precedent that can be used against future agency overreach.
Press Release
Related Articles
- CHD Wins Landmark Case as NY Supreme Court Rules COVID Vaccine Mandate for Health Workers ‘Null’ and ‘Void’
- CHD.TV interview with lead attorney Sujata Gibson – CHD Strikes Down NY Healthcare Worker Mandate With Attorney Sujata Gibson | Children’s Health Defense
NEW YORK
NYS Regulation Disallowing Medical Exemptions from Children’s Treating Physicians
Casse Name: Doe v. Zucker
Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT, U.S. SUPREME COURT
Lead Attorney: Sujata Gibson
Summary
Class action lawsuit challenging the NYS Dept. of Health medical exemption regulation which resulted in the removal of thousands of medically fragile children from New York State schools. The children of the eight named plaintiffs were denied the right to even attend school online. Plaintiffs assert that they have a fundamental right to protect their children’s lives in accordance with their doctor’s best medical judgment and that school principals are not qualified to substitute their own judgment about what is safe for these children. An Emergency Writ was filed with the Supreme Court, which was denied. Certiorari Petition to the Supreme Court on the merits filed Nov.1, 2022. Denied.
Related Articles
-
- Legal Team Led by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Sues New York State on Behalf of Families for Denying Lawful Medical Exemptions to School Children
- New York – Emergency Relief Sought to Get Medically Fragile Kids Back in School
- CHD Appeals to U.S. Supreme Court to Stop New York From Excluding Kids With Medical Exemptions for Vaccines From Online Education
- Legal Update on NY Lawsuit About Lawful Medical Exemptions Denied to School Children
- Medical Exemptions for Vaccines From Online Education
- Supreme Court Docket
NEW YORK
NYC’s Failure to Honor Teachers’ Duly Filed Religious Exemptions
Case Name: Kane v. DeBlasio
Court: SDNY, 2nd Circuit
Lead Attorney: Sujata Gibson
Summary
This First Amendment case challenges an unconstitutional and blatant discriminatory New York City vaccine mandate for all teachers and educators. Originally, the mandate contained no accommodation for religious beliefs, required under the statute. When legally challenged to provide one, the Mayor did so, but excluded all but two religions from protection — only to then openly advocate that any religious belief that conflicts with the Catholic Pope be denied. Plaintiffs argue that such a denial violates the First Amendment right to religious freedom. The U.S. Supreme Court will consider the Plaintiff’s legal challenge. Attorney Gibson believes that this case has a strong chance of prevailing and will set precedent that religious exemptions against vaccine mandates must be recognized. Lead plaintiff Michael Kane, an NYC special education teacher terminated under that discriminatory policy, now works for CHD as a grassroots organizer.
We filed for an emergency temporary stay of NYC Department of Education deadlines for vaccination as a condition of employment (or reemployment) until a three-judge panel issues a decision on the associated motion for emergency injunction. 2nd Circuit Case consolidated with NYFRL Appellants’, Brief Filed Oct.17, 2022.
The case was fully briefed, and argued on Feb. 8, 2023. To try to prevent relief, the City dropped the DOE and municipal mandates on the eve of arguments then argued the case is moot.
As yet, no decision. We have had to submit as many as 28 letters and dueling updates to the Court while we wait, as facts develop, and new cases come out.
Related Articles
- New York City Teachers Can Re-Apply for Religious Exemptions, Court Rules
- NY City Teachers Back in Court to Argue City’s COVID Vaccine Mandate Policy Violates Constitution
- NYC Teachers Score Another Win in Fight to Obtain Religious Exemptions
- Children’s Health Defense Supports NYC Teachers Heading to Supreme Court Over Religious Exemption to Vaccination
- Supreme Court to Consider Granting Emergency Relief to NYC Teachers Denied Religious Accommodation From Vaccine Mandate
- Children’s Health Defense Reports Third Judge Asked to Step Down in COVID Vaccine Mandate Case
NEW YORK STATE
NY State Healthcare Worker Vaccine Mandate
Case Name: Dr. Doe, M.D. et al. v. Hochul et al.
Court: NDNY
Lead Attorneys: Sujata Gibson (with Nelson Madden Black)
Summary
This case challenges the New York State healthcare worker vaccine mandate. Plaintiffs are medical professionals and healthcare workers who were either suspended or terminated for failure to comply with the COVID vaccine mandate based on sincerely held religious beliefs. Initially, the State defendants were enjoined from enforcement against those with religious exemptions as a result of a preliminary injunction entered in the related case, Dr. A v. Hochul. However, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated the preliminary injunction. In order to exhaust administrative remedies, Plaintiffs have filed EEOC charges and are awaiting right-to-sue letters. In addition, Plaintiffs have filed a Writ of Certiorari along with amicus briefs. The State defendants have filed a Motion to Dismiss. Case was voluntarily dismissed and brought in state court, where the plaintiffs assembled for that suit and prevailed.
FEDERAL
Censorship Case against Sen. Warren
Case Name: Robert F. Kennedy Jr., v. Senator Warren
Court: WEST DIST. WA FED. CT.
Lead Attorneys: Jed Rubenfeld, Nathan Arnold, Rene Wicklund
Summary
Plaintiffs filed suit against U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren for First Amendment Constitutional violations against free speech. In Fall 2021, U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren sent a letter to Amazon demanding an “immediate review of Amazon’s algorithms to weed out books peddling “COVID misinformation,” and specifically singled out Dr. Joseph Mercola’s book, “The Truth about COVID-19,” in which Robert F. Kennedy Jr. wrote the forward. Warren’s letter was an attempt to intimidate Amazon into dropping the book — akin to modern-day book burning and censorship of constitutionally protected speech. The issues raised in this case go against SCOTUS precedent in Bantam Books v. Sullivan whereby the U.S. Supreme Court held that state officials violated the First Amendment by sending letters to booksellers in an effort to censor free speech.
Currently on appeal of dismissal in the 9th Circuit to determine whether a United States Senator’s issuance and publication of a letter to Amazon denouncing Plaintiffs’ book by name, claiming (falsely) that the book contains “misinformation” that has led to “untold . . . deaths,” and warning every bookseller in the nation that “peddling” this book is “potentially unlawful” raises a serious First Amendment question under Bantam Books. Oral Arguments were held onJan. 9, 2023
On May 4, 2023, the panel affirmed the district court’s order denying plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction.
Related Articles
CALIFORNIA
Censorship of CHD Social Media by Meta Platforms, Inc. (Facebook)
Case Name: Children’s Health Defense v. Meta Platforms, Inc.
Court: Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
Lead Attorneys: Roger Teich, Jed Rubenfeld, Mary Holland, Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
Summary
In August. 2019, CHD sued Meta Platforms Inc., also known as Facebook, its “independent fact-checkers,” and Mark Zuckerberg, alleging collusion with the U.S. government to censor CHD social media content, and racketeering to defund and malign CHD’s support and financial interests. The case was dismissed after a March 19, 2021 hearing. CHD appealed the dismissal and argued its appeal in the Ninth Circuit on May 17, 2022. While a decision is pending, CHD has filed multiple motions for the Court to take judicial notice of newly available information, including information from the Missouri, et al. v. Biden, et al., case relevant to the allegations of CHD’s complaint.
Related Articles
- CHD Legal Team Led by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Sues Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg, and Three of Facebook’s So-Called ‘Fact-Checkers’
- CHD Holds Press Conference with Legal Team and Plaintiff in Lawsuit Against Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg, and Three of Facebook’s So-Called “Fact-Checkers”
- CHD Files First Amended Complaint in Lawsuit Against Facebook
- How Facebook’s ‘Fact Check’ Feature Suppresses Truth, Promotes Falsehoods About COVID-19
- CHD Attorneys Argue Against Motion to Dismiss Facebook Censorship Lawsuit
NEW YORK CITY
NYC’s Religious Exemption Process for All City Employees
Case Name: New Yorkers for Religious Liberty, Inc. et al. v. City of New York
Court: SDNY
Lead Attorneys: Sujata Gibson, Barry Black
Summary
A proposed class action lawsuit challenging New York City’s COVID vaccine mandate seeking declaratory judgment and injunctive relief, as well as damages, was filed alleging that the city violated the constitutional rights of employees who were denied religious accommodation from COVID vaccine mandates. Although the complaint for preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order are still before the federal district court, the lawsuit is before the U.S. Supreme Court on an emergency petition. Plaintiffs’ attorneys are hopeful to actually litigate the science and show how these mandates are unnecessary under either strict scrutiny or a rational basis test and intend to present powerful stories and testimony of irreparable harm.
Case 22-1801 was filed in the 2nd circuit on Aug. 18, 2022. Appellants requested an injunction enjoining enforcement of the City’s COVID-19 vaccine requirements against employees who assert a religious objection, pending an interlocutory appeal claiming the district court abused its discretion by failing to apply strict scrutiny. The Mandates burden the free exercise of religion and are neither neutral nor generally applicable. Temporary Injunction Denied Aug. 24, 2022. The motion was heard on Feb. 8, 2023.
As yet, no decision. We have had to submit as many as 28 letters and dueling updates to the Court while we wait, as facts develop and new cases come out.
Related Articles
VERMONT
School Mask Mandate Case
Case Name: Children’s Health Defense v. North Country Supervisory Union
Court: VERMONT SUPERIOR COURT ORLEANS DIVISION
Lead Attorney: Robert Kaplan
Summary
CHD filed a complaint against the North Country Supervisory Union with the goal of striking down its mask mandate, even though the supervisory union’s mandate was rescinded as of March 7. The complaint alleges that the defendant lacks the statutory authority to issue mask mandates and asks the court to consider evidence showing that masks do not stop the spread of COVID-19, but instead have a negative impact on students, including making it difficult to breathe and harming respiratory health. In fact, the wearing of a mask “is a form of medical intervention and treatment that should be decided by the child’s parents, not a school or school official with absolutely no training or expertise in the medical field.” Therefore, this case is important not only in defending the fundamental right to parent but to stop unconstitutional mandates. Plaintiffs request the court issue an order that voids any future attempts to reinstate mask mandates.
In summary, all claims of the complaint were dismissed, but for the IIED claims of Mr. Desautels, Amy Ladeau, and R.D. Preliminary Injunction denied.
Related Articles
FEDERAL
Testing Mandate, ADA
Case Name: Corrigan v. Boston University
Court: US DISTRICT COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS
Lead Attorney: Robert Meltzer
Summary
Plaintiffs filed a complaint when Ms. Corrigan was suspended from her studies at Boston University after the school failed to accommodate her disability, which she considers medically private, that precludes her from complying with its COVID testing protocol. The school required a specific testing regimen that provided for no alternative protocols for those unable to comply with the testing method mandated by the university. The claim, brought under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), charges that Boston University not only refused to provide an alternative method of testing to accommodate Ms. Corrigan’s disability but also refused to engage in the requisite interactive process required to reach accommodation, and otherwise failed to provide an effective, comprehensive and meaningful grievance process. The complaint seeks declaratory judgment of the illegality of Boston University’s acts and seeks to compel future legal compliance. Unspecified damages are also sought. Motion to Dismiss granted. On appeal. Appellant’s brief is due on Aug. 31, 2023.
Related Articles
- Children’s Health Defense Says Boston University Violated Americans with Disabilities Act
- Boston University COVID Testing Policy Violated Americans With Disabilities Act, CHD Lawsuit Alleges
FEDERAL
Emergency Use Authorization of Pfizer COVID Vaccine for Ages 5-11
Case Name: Children’s Health Defense et al. v. U.S. Food & Drug Administration et al.
Status: Complaint filed 01/24/2022
Lead Attorneys: Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Robert Barnes
CHD Attorneys: Mary Holland, Ray Flores
Summary
FDA used its Emergency Use Authorization powers to authorize Pfizer-BioNTech, a dangerous drug, for minor children as young as 5 years old to address COVID-19, under the pretext of being in a two-year-long emergency. The FDA, also using its emergency powers, redefined this drug as a “vaccine” even though it did not meet the century-long definition of the term to include this new experimental biologic. The FDA failed to provide for any notice-and-comment period, failed to provide for any citizen petition recognition nor redress of petitioner concerns and grievances, claimed these emergency powers provided for no legislative limit beyond their expansive claims and even claimed these emergency powers prevent and preclude judicial review by citizens. The FDA has become an agency that declares its own law, enforces its own law and adjudicates its own law, with children now the sacrificial lambs for this precarious power grab.
The court granted the FDA’s Motion to Dismiss 11.18.22. Appellant/Petitioner filed its brief on May 16, 2023. Appellant’s Opposition brief was filed July 17, 2023.
Related Articles
WASHINGTON, DC
City Council Minor’s ‘Consent’ Law
Case Name: Victor Booth et al v. Muriel Bowser
Status: Preliminary injunction prohibiting the Minor consent law granted on March 18.
Lead Attorney: James Mason
CHD Attorney: Rolf Hazlehurst
Summary
The D.C. City Council passed a bill to allow children to “consent” to any CDC-recommended vaccine without the knowledge or consent of their parents or guardians. This bill specifically looks towards having children consent to COVID vaccines without parent knowledge. The bill even requires schools to conceal vaccination information from parents. This bill became law; we collaborated with ParentalRights.org to sue on behalf of D.C. parents and children and CHD as this law violates many federal laws and Constitutional rights.
The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on March 18 issued an order granting a preliminary injunction prohibiting the mayor of the District of Columbia, the D.C. Department of Health and D.C. public schools from enforcing the D.C. Minor Consent for Vaccination Amendment Act of 2020 (D.C. Minor Consent Act) until further order of the court.
Related Articles
- CHD Lawsuit Seeks to Overturn D.C. Law Allowing Kids to Be Vaccinated Without Parents’ Knowledge or Consent
- Judge Rules 11-Year-Olds Can’t Get Vaccines Without Parents’ Consent
NEW YORK CITY
Against Mandatory PCR Testing for School Children
Case Name: Aviles v. DeBlasio
Status: Appeal Concluded. NYC rescinded its PCR testing mandate
Lead Attorney: Ray Flores
CHD Attorney: Mary Holland
Summary
CHD recognizes that polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing is a linchpin of the COVID pandemic. The number of “positive cases” has determined isolation, quarantine and lockdown measures, even though PCR testing is inherently unable to determine infectiousness. CHD is an institutional plaintiff, together with parents of schoolchildren, challenging compulsory PCR testing as an emergency use authorization product that cannot be lawfully mandated.
The Southern District of NY held a preliminary injunction hearing January 14, 2021 it was denied. The lower court case is stayed since Plaintiffs appealed to the Second Circuit. Although NY schools no longer require parental consent to PCR testing as a condition for attendance, the case is not moot. It is capable of repetition, and requires review. Plaintiff’s Appellate Reply Brief is due last week of October 2021.
Related Articles
- CHD Sues NYC Dept. of Education, Mayor de Blasio for Arbitrary School Closures and Coerced Medical Testing
- Judge Denies Injunction to End Mandatory PCR Testing in NYC Schools
- CHD Appeals Decision in NYC Mandatory PCR Testing Case, Citing Federal Law
NEW YORK STATE
Against NYS Health Commissioner for Statewide Mask Mandate
Case Name: William Ouweleen v. Howard Zucker
Status: Filed 08/05/2021
Lead Attorney: Sujata Gibson
CHD Attorneys: Mary Holland, Ray Flores
Summary
Plaintiff sought declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent the ongoing violation of his most basic rights, dignity, and safety. The NYSDOH lacks the authority to issue this Mask Mandate sua sponte, particularly after the enhanced emergency powers previously granted to the Executive branch have expired. This mandate is a clear violation of our most sacred laws under international law, federal law, and New York law.
Case was withdrawn without prejudice because of the repeal, with leave to refile if the mandate is brought back. The state did not attempt to bring the mandate back.
Related Articles
NEW JERSEY
Against Rutgers University for Vaccine Mandate for Faculty, Staff and Students
Case Name: Children’s Health Defense, Inc. et al. v. Rutgers et al.
Status: Appeal 3rd Circuit
Attorneys: Julio Gomez, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Mary Holland, Ray Flores
Summary
Challenge to mandate on many grounds, including natural immunity, EUA federal law, and substantive due process.
Motion to dismiss was granted without oral argument Sep. 23, 2022. Appealed to the 3rd Circuit. Argument was heard June 27, 2023, awaiting result.
Related Articles
- Children’s Health Defense Sues Rutgers University Over COVID Vaccine Mandate
- CHD Appeals Dismissal of Lawsuit Challenging Rutgers’ Vaccine Mandate
- Appeals Court Hears Arguments Challenging Rutgers University COVID Vaccine Mandate in Case That Could Set National Precedent
FEDERAL
Against FDA to Revoke COVID Vaccine EUAs and Refrain from Licensure
Case Name: Children’s Health Defense v. FDA
Status: CASE CALENDARED for oral argument on Wednesday, 01/10/2024 in the 5th Circuit New Orleans
Lead Attorney: Ray Flores
CHD Attorney: Mary Holland
Summary
On Aug. 31, 2021, CHD filed suit in Federal Court in the Eastern District of Tennessee against the FDA and Acting Commissioner, Janet Woodruff seeking vacatur of the August 23, 2021 Licensure of Pfizer’s currently unavailable Comirnaty vaccine.
This suit is the natural follow-up to the Citizen Petition submitted by Dr. Meryl Nass and Robert F. Kennedy Jr., on May 16, 2021 which received over 30,000 public comments (thank you!). The FDA’s August 23, 2021 denial cleared the way for attorneys Robert F. Barnes and Derek Jordan of Barnes Law along with RFK Jr., to file suit on CHD’s behalf. The Complaint alleges one sole count, “Failure to Abide by Federal Law as Abuse of Discretion — APA 5 USC 706(2)(A)”
“Defendants’ arbitrary and capricious authorization of the Comirnaty vaccine gives the misleading impression to the public that the currently available Pfizer vaccine is fully approved, when in fact it is not. What is available, according to the FDA’s own admission, is actually the EUA, liability-free product.
The District Court dismissed the case based on lack of standing. The 6th circuit panel affirmed. On Aug. 26, 2022, Attorney for CHD, Robert Barnes, filed a motion for rehearing en banc. Motion denied. The Supreme Court denied review.
Case calendared for oral argument on Wednesday, 01/10/2024 in the 5th Circuit New Orleans
Related Articles
- Children’s Health Defense Sues FDA Over Approval of Pfizer Comirnaty Vaccine
- 14 Military Members Detail Toll Vaccine Mandates Are Taking on Service Members in Amended Motion to CHD Lawsuit Against FDA
California
Gardasil Injury Case
Case Name: Robi v. Merck
Court: LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT
Status: Active
Attorney: Michael Baum
Summary
Gardasil vaccines can turn previously happy, healthy, popular, athletic and academic superstars into wheel-chair bound or bedridden victims with soul-crushing fatigue. Internal documents showed that Merck cherry-picked its own data to mislead the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and doctors about Gardasil’s safety and efficacy. We aim to get justice for those impacted and to force Merck to stop defrauding the public.
Jury trial is set for May 28, 2024.
Related Articles
FEDERAL
Gardasil Cases
Case Name: In Re: Gardasil Products Liability Litigation
Court: U.S. DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
Status: Active
Attorneys: Michael Baum, Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
Summary
Since 2019, CHD has supported over 60 lawsuits against Merck alleging the drugmaker knowingly concealed adverse events associated with its Gardasil HPV vaccine. These cases have been brought on behalf of young men and women who sustained life-altering injuries and devastating side effects. All have their own unique stories, with one thing in common — they all agree that if Merck had told the truth about the known dangers associated with Gardasil, they never would have consented to the allegedly “defective and dangerous” HPV vaccine.
Press Release
Related Articles
- Fourth Gardasil Lawsuit Against Merck Alleges Its HPV Vaccine Caused Debilitating Injuries
- New Lawsuit Alleges Merck’s Gardasil HPV Vaccine Caused Infertility, Seizures
- Ninth Lawsuit Filed Against Merck Alleging Gardasil Vaccine Causes Injuries
- 10th Lawsuit Filed Against Merck, Alleging Gardasil HPV Vaccine Caused Serious Injuries
- 25-Year-Old Woman a ‘Shell of What I Used to Be’ After Taking Gardasil Vaccine
- Young Man Sues Merck, Wants Accountability for Injuries Caused by Gardasil HPV Vaccine
- Plaintiffs Await ‘Their Day in Court’ as Judicial Panel Consolidates Dozens of Lawsuits Against Merck’s HPV Gardasil Vaccine
- Injured by Merck’s Gardasil HPV Vaccine? You or Your Child May Have a Case
Other Gardasil Updates
- Court Hears Gardasil Science and Moves Forward
- RFK Jr.: Gardasil “The Science” Video and Other Facts
- CHD Files Product Liability Lawsuit in Florida Middle District Court: McElerney v. Merck & Co. Inc. et al.
Other Legal Updates
Your support is essential to CHD’s efforts to defend the health of our children and obtain justice for those already injured.
Sign up for free news and updates from Children’s Health Defense. CHD focuses on legal strategies to defend the health of our children and obtain justice for those injured. We can't do it without your support.
