Litigation Actions
Cases
The California chapter of CHD has several legal cases in process as well.
NEW
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, Esq., Ray Flores, Esq.
The CDC considers VAERS to be a key “early warning system” for detecting unusual or unexpected patterns of adverse event reporting that can signal safety problems with a vaccine.
According to the co-sponsored VAERS “Standard Operating Procedures” (SOP) for COVID-19, dated Jan. 29, 2021, the CDC and the FDA would coordinate monitoring for “potential new safety concerns for COVID-19 vaccines” by performing routine VAERS surveillance. Specifically, the CDC would 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 sought 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
FDA VAERS Monitoring 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, Esq., Ray Flores, Esq.
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 District of Columbia to compel the FDA’s compliance with the Freedom of Information Act.
Related Articles
TEXAS
‘Trusted News Initiative’ Antitrust Litigation
Case Name: CHD, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., et al v The Washington Post Co et al.
Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
Attorneys: Ryan P. Brown, John W. Howard
CHD has filed a first-in-the-country antitrust lawsuit against members of the “Trusted News Initiative” (“TNI”) for collusively censoring online news.
The TNI is a self-proclaimed “industry partnership” formed around 2020, joining together some of the world’s largest legacy news organizations, such as The Washington Post, the Associated Press, Reuters, and its founder, the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) with all the biggest Big Tech platforms including Facebook, Google, Twitter, Microsoft. 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 deems “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 firms from colluding to deny critical facilities or market access to rivals. Such agreements are called “group boycotts,” and they are per se illegal. The TNI is a massive group boycott. Since 2020, it 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
CALIFORNIA
Lawsuit to Stop California Law That Censors Doctors’ Speech (AB 2098)
Case Name: Hoang v. Bonta et. al.
Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Attorneys: Rick Jaffe, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.
Children’s Health Defense, representing plaintiffs Dr. LeTrinh Hoang, Physicians for Informed Consent and Children’s Health Defense – California Chapter, sued 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.”
Complaint
Preliminary injunction Jan 25 2023
Related articles
- 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
- Doctors Speak Out Against ‘Medical Totalitarianism’ as Newsom Signs Bill That Punishes Doctors for COVID ‘Misinformation’ • Children’s Health Defense
- 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
Attorney: Sujata Gibson
Medical Professionals for Informed Consent filed a lawsuit challenging the mandate for healthcare professionals onOct. 20, 2022, alleging they had lost — or were at imminent risk of losing — their jobs. Several of them 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 in Syracuse, New York.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 January 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.
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 | Childrens Health Defense
NEW YORK
NYS Regulation Disallowing Medical Exemptions from Children’s Treating Physicians
Casse Name: Doe v. Zucker
Court: NDNY, 2nd Circuit, SCOTUS
Lead Attorney: Sujata Gibson
Summary
Class action lawsuit challenging NYS Dept. of Health medical exemption regulation which resulted in the removal of thousands of medically fragile children from New York State schools. 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. Emergency Writ was filed with the Supreme Court, which was denied. Certiorari Petition to the Supreme Court on the merits filed 11.1.22.
Feb 22 2023 – DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/17/2023
Related Articles
- CHD Appeals to U.S. Supreme Court to Stop New York From Excluding Kids With Medical Exemptions for Vaccines From Online Education/a>
- Legal Update on NY Lawsuit About Lawful Medical Exemptions Denied to School Children
- 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
- 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 as required by 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, a 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.
Related Articles
- Supreme Court to Consider Granting Emergency Relief to NYC Teachers Denied Religious Accommodation From Vaccine Mandate
- Children’s Health Defense Supports NYC Teachers Heading to Supreme Court Over Religious Exemption to Vaccination
- NYC Teachers Score Another Win in Fight to Obtain Religious Exemptions
- NY City Teachers Back in Court to Argue City’s COVID Vaccine Mandate Policy Violates Constitution
- New York City Teachers Can Re-Apply for Religious Exemptions, Court Rules
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 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 and Plaintiffs’ Response is due later in May.
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.
Related Articles
CALIFORNIA
Governor’s State of Emergency Orders
Case Name: Orange County Bd. of Education v. Newsom
Court: Orange Co. CA Sup. Ct.
Lead Attorneys: Scott Street, Robert Tyler
Summary
CHD, CHD-CA and Orange County Board of Education filed a lawsuit against Governor Newson in an effort to end the COVID-19 state of emergency that has been in effect since March 2020. Attorneys filed a motion for preliminary injunction, partly in response to Governor Newsom’s maskless appearance at a Stadium in Los Angeles County that hosted the Super Bowl. Attorney Scott Street representing the board stated, “This case seeks to restore the normal process of governance and to ensure transparency and accountability in the political process.”
This case has had some impact as Governor Newsom rescinded the stay-at-home orders and has terminated 90% of his pandemic executive orders. He has also indicated his intent to terminate the COVID state of emergency soon. However, to account for recent developments and keep the pressure on, attorneys filed a Second Amended Complaint and have served a deposition notice on the Governor. The motion was held on and the complaint is being amended. Plaintiffs’ attorneys are still demanding discovery from the State.
DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT SCHEDULED FOR 06/01/2023 AT 01:30:00 PM IN C18 AT CENTRAL JUSTICE CENTER.
Related Articles
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 February 8, 2023.
Appellants now request an injunction enjoining enforcement of the City’s COVID-19 vaccine requirements against employees who assert a religious objection, pending interlocutory appeal. A motion for Injunction pending appeal filed in the case has been added as an argued case to the substantive motions. A hearing will be held in the Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse, New York, NY 10007, 17th floor, Room 1705. (NOTE CONSOLIDATED WITH KANE v. DeBlasio)
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.
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.
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
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 argued its appeal in the Ninth Circuit on May 17, 2022 and is awaiting a decision.
Related Articles
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. CHD will be appealing.
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
- Judge Rules 11-Year-Olds Can’t Get Vaccines Without Parents’ Consent
- CHD Lawsuit Seeks to Overturn D.C. Law Allowing Kids to Be Vaccinated Without Parents’ Knowledge or Consent
NEW YORK CITY
Against Mandatory PCR Testing for School Children
Case Name: Aviles v. DeBlasio
Status: Appeal in progress
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.
Due in part to the lawsuit, New York State repealed the mask mandate a month early.
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, substantive due process.
Motion to dismiss granted without oral argument September 23, 2022. Appealed to the 3rd Circuit.
In a reply brief filed March 2 in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit, attorneys for CHD and the students argued the district court erred when it dismissed the case.
Appellants’ Brief due 1.10.23.
Related Articles
- Children’s Health Defense Sues Rutgers University Over COVID Vaccine Mandate
- CHD Appeals Dismissal of Lawsuit Challenging Rutgers’ Vaccine Mandate
FEDERAL
Against FDA to Revoke COVID Vaccine EUAs and Refrain from Licensure
Case Name: Children’s Health Defense v. FDA
Status: Motion to stay filed; Anticipating a hearing date
Lead Attorney: Ray Flores
CHD Attorney: Mary Holland
Summary
On August 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.
CHD filed an amended Motion to Stay and anticipates a hearing date.
- 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
FEDERAL
Children’s Health Defense v. Federal Communications Commission
Case Name: Children’s Health Defense et al. v. Federal Communications Commission
Status: Appealed
Case number: 21-1075 Appeal
Lead Attorney: W. Scott McCullough
CHD Attorney: Mary Holland
Summary
CHD, together with Environmental Health Trust, sued the FCC for failure to update its insufficient guidelines from the mid-1990s regarding the health effects of wireless technology. The FCC’s failure to update the science that it uses in its decision has led to widespread injury. Oral argument before the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals resulted in CHD’s Historic Win!
Related Articles
- ‘Historic Win’ by Children’s Health Defense in Case Against FCC on Safety Guidelines for 5G and Wireless
- CHD Gets Its Day in Court — Hearing Scheduled for Landmark Case Against FCC
- Press Conference: Response Brief Filed in Landmark Case Against FCC
- CHD v. FCC Press Conference: Evidentiary Brief Filing
- CHD v. FCC – Emergency Injunction
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 is supporting 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.
Related Articles
- Fourth Gardasil Lawsuit Against Merck Alleges Its HPV Vaccine Caused Debilitating Injuries
- Ninth Lawsuit Filed Against Merck Alleging Gardasil Vaccine Causes Injuries
- 10th Lawsuit Filed Against Merck, Alleging Gardasil HPV Vaccine Caused Serious Injuries
- Young Man Sues Merck, Wants Accountability for Injuries Caused by Gardasil HPV Vaccine
- 25-Year-Old Woman a ‘Shell of What I Used to Be’ After Taking Gardasil Vaccine
- New Lawsuit Alleges Merck’s Gardasil HPV Vaccine Caused Infertility, Seizures
- Children’s Health Defense Says Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System Disregarded Regulations on Counting Serious Cases for Years, Resulting in a Grossly Inaccurate Safety Assessment
Other Gardasil Updates
- CHD Files Product Liability Lawsuit in Florida Middle District Court: McElerney v. Merck & Co. Inc. et al
- RFK, Jr.: Gardasil “The Science” Video and Other Facts
- Court Hears Gardasil Science and Moves Forward
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.
