Skip to main content
Social Media
  • twitter
  • linkedin
Home
  • About the project
    • About the project
    • Partnerships and Collaborators
    • Coordination Unit
    • Project Management Team
    • International Network of Judges and Legal Scholars
    • Research assistants
  • Case Law Database
    • Case index
    • Database charts
  • News
    • News and announcements
    • Press newsroom
  • Resources
    • Working papers and other resources
    • Media kit
  • Contacts
Back to the previous page

United States of America, United States District Court, Southern District of Ohio, 5 May 2022, Changizi et al. vs. Department of Health and Human Services

Case overview

Share
  • linkedin
  • twitter
  • facebook
  • envelope
  • print
Country
United States of America
Case ID
Changizi et al. vs. Department of Health and Human Services
Decision date
5 May 2022
Deciding body (English)
United States District Court, Southern District of Ohio
Type of body
Court
Type of Court (material scope)
Civil Court
Type of jurisdiction
Single jurisdiction system
Type of Court (territorial scope)
Local Court
Instance
1st Instance
Area
Health, right to information and freedom of expression
Outcome of the decision
Claim inadmissible or rejected

Case analisys

General Summary

The Plaintiffs were three Twitter users who used their respective platform profiles to criticize conventional government responses to the Covid-19 pandemic. The Plaintiffs claimed that Twitter provided a free environment for users like themselves, "rarely suspending" individuals who questioned the "wisdom, efficacy, and morality" of public "lockdowns and mask and vaccine mandates." By March 2021, however, the website allegedly changed its policy, and began suspending users for violations of its policy against "demonstrably false or misleading Covid-19 information" at a faster pace. The Plaintiffs claimed that Twitter's actions were being orchestrated by the federal government and alleged that members of the administration had used the pretense of an ostensible war on the spread of Covid-19 "misinformation" when it was their true intention to silence individuals who, like them, expressed "opinions that diverged from the White House's messaging on Covid-19." The Plaintiffs thus accused the Defendants – the Department of Health and Human Services and the respective Surgeon General and Secretary - of "instrumentalizing" or "commandeering" Twitter to both censor and "chill" online criticism of the government's pandemic response, thus violating (1) their rights under the First and Fourth Amendments of the United States Constitution, (2) the Administrative Procedure Act (the "APA"), and (3) 42 U.S.C. § 264(a). The Plaintiffs sought a range of declaratory and injunctive relief, including a preliminary injunction against Defendants to both retract the RFI and abstain "from enforcing coercive policies or conditions that exert pressure upon Twitter and other technology companies to censor users." The Court analyzed the arguments of the Plaintiffs and Defendants and: (1) granted the Defendant’s motion to dismiss, and (2) denied the Plaintiffs’ preliminary injunction as moot and motion to compel.

Facts of the case

The Plaintiffs claimed that Twitter more or less provided a free environment for users like themselves, "rarely suspending" individuals who questioned the "wisdom, efficacy, and morality" of public "lockdowns and mask and vaccine mandates." By March of 2021, however, the website allegedly changed its policy, and began suspending users who violated its policy against "demonstrably false or misleading Covid-19 information" at a faster pace. The Plaintiffs stated they were ensnared in this crackdown. They claimed they were "heavily censored" or entirely banned from the platform. The Plaintiffs specifically relied on the days following March 3, 2022, to illustrate their point. On that date, the Surgeon General issued a Request for Information which asked platforms like Twitter to voluntarily provide the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) with information concerning "major sources" of "Covid-19 misinformation. “The Plaintiffs claimed that Twitter's actions were being orchestrated by the federal government and alleged that members of the administration had used the pretense of an ostensible war against the spread of Covid-19 "misinformation" when it was their true intention to silence individuals who expressed "opinions that diverged from the White House's messaging on Covid-19."

Type of measure challenged
Federal government measure
Measures, actions, remedies claimed
Preliminary injunction
Individual / collective enforcement
Action brought by a specific group of claimants in their own interest for the purpose of collective redress measures such as damages or restitutions and annulment of the administrative decision.
Nature of the parties
  • Claimant(s)
    Private collective
  • Defendant(s)
    Public
Type of procedure
Urgency
Reasoning of the deciding body

The Court analyzed the arguments of the plaintiffs and defendants and reasoned that:

  1. With regard to the Defendants’ motion to dismiss, the Court stated that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the Plaintiffs' claims because they did not have standing to bring them in the first place. It also reasoned that the Plaintiffs did not sufficiently establish that they were entitled to the relief they sought. The Court also stated that the Plaintiffs had failed to sufficiently demonstrate (1) a "fairly traceable" causal connection between any past, present, or future disciplinary action taken by Twitter and the harm allegedly suffered; and (2) that their injuries were sufficiently "redressable."
  2. Regarding the motion to compel, the Court reasoned that even if Plaintiffs had established enough facts to establish their standing, none of their claims passed muster under Rule 12(b)(6). The Court analyzed the Plaintiffs claims grounded on the First and Fourth Amendment, as well as the A dministrative Procedure Act and concluded that the Plaintiffs lack standing, and even were that not the case, the content of their claims did not plausibly suggest they were entitled to the relief they sought.  
  3. Finally, with regard to the preliminary injunction inquiry, the Court had to consider (1) whether the movant was likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether the movant's requested relief was necessary to prevent irreparable injury; (3) whether the balance of equities tipped in the movant's favor; and (4) whether a preliminary injunction would not be adverse to the public interest. The Court, however, argued that it need not engage in this inquiry, given the Defendants’ successful motion to dismiss.
Conclusions of the deciding body

The Court concluded that the Plaintiffs lacked standing and granted the Defendants’ motion to dismiss and denied the Plaintiffs’ preliminary injunction and motion to compel as moot.

Balancing Fundamental Rights and Fundamental Freedoms

Fundamental Right(s) involved
  • Freedom of expression
  • Freedom of information
Fundamental Right(s) instruments (constitutional provisions, international conventions and treaties)
  • First and Fourth Amendments of the United States Constitution
  • Administrative Procedure Act
Rights and freedoms specifically identified as (possibly) conflicting with the right to health
Health v. freedom of expression / right to information
Balancing techniques and principles (proportionality, reasonableness, others)

The Court applied the general principle of reasonableness in two points of analysis:

  1. The Court agreed with the HHS department that its efforts to confront Covid-19 misinformation, as alleged, did not “reasonably” constitute an exercise of “coercive power” over Twitter. Blum, 457 U.S. at 1004. Therefore, because the Plaintiffs’ allegations did not pass muster under the “state compulsion” framework, and because they did not make any colorable argument that any other exception to the state-action doctrine applied, the Plaintiffs’ First Amendment claim failed.
  2. The Plaintiffs’ stated bases for the “unreasonableness” of the requested information by the General Surgeon, as discussed, did not survive the scrutiny of Rule 12(b)(6). They also did not persuade the Court otherwise that the RFI was “unreasonable.” As mentioned, the RFI, by virtue of its non-binding status, was not a “demand” and thus did not constitute a “legislative” or “substantive” rule that required congressional authorization. While the language of the RFI was broad, the Court was not persuaded that it was “too indefinite,” insofar as it (1) specified “sources of misinformation” to a sufficient degree; (2) stated its general purpose; and (3) elaborated the specific topics upon which it wished respondents to offer comment. Likewise, the spread of misinformation related to Covid-19 was at least “reasonably relevant” to the Surgeon General’s efforts to combat the disease.
Author of the case note
Maíra Tito, Research Assistant, NOVA School of Law, Lisbon
Published by Marco Nicolò on 26 November 2022

More cases from United States of America

  • United States of America, United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, 16 May 2022, Arc of Iowa et al. vs. Kimberly Reinolds et al
    Area: Use of protection devices
    Fundamentals rights involved: Right to bodily integrity; Right to education
    Outcome: Claim inadmissible or rejected
  • United States of America, United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, 18 May 2022, Open MRI and Imaging v. Cigna Health and Life Insurance Co.
    Area: Healthcare management (Covid related, excluding vaccination)
    Fundamentals rights involved: Right to health (inc. right to vaccination, right to access to reproductive health)
    Outcome: Claim upheld
  • United States of America, United States Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, 25 May 2022, Allen Gahl v. Aurora Healthcare
    Area: Healthcare management (Covid related, excluding vaccination)
    Fundamentals rights involved: Right to health (inc. right to vaccination, right to access to reproductive health)
    Outcome: Claim inadmissible or rejected
  • United States of America, United States District Court for the Northern District of California, 13 May 2022, In Re StubHub Refund Litigation
    Area: Consumer protection
    Outcome: Claim upheld
  • United States of America, Court of Appeals of California, 15 November 2021, Inns-by-the-sea v. California Mutual Ins. Co., No. D079036
    Area: Consumer protection
    Fundamentals rights involved: Right to property
    Outcome: Claim inadmissible or rejected
  • United States of America, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, 5 May 2022, No. 7:21-cv-393‎
    Area: Health law, detention and prison law
    Fundamentals rights involved: Prisoners’ rights; Right to health (inc. right to vaccination, right to access to reproductive health)
    Outcome: Claim inadmissible or rejected
  • Load 6 more
List all available cases from United States of America

Breadcrumb

  1. Home
  2. Case Index
  3. United States of America, United States District Court, Southern District of Ohio, 5 May 2022, Changizi et al. vs. Department of Health and Human Services
home

This project and its database have been made possible with the financial support from the World Health Organization

www.covid19litigation.org is run and maintained by the University of Trento
Via Calepina 14, I-38122 Trento (Italy) — P. Iva/C.F. IT-00340520220

Social Media Links

  • twitter
  • linkedin

Terms of use

www.covid19litigation.org
Site purpose

This site is for informational use only. Case law summaries are not legal advices and may not be relied on as such. Anyone seeking for legal advice should obtain appropriate legal counsel.

Site operation

This site may not be fully up-to-date (for example, cases may be reviewed, reversed, or appealed). This site may be taken down at any time without notice. The case law summaries provided on this site may be incomplete or outdated.

Copyright

Any files provided on this site were taken from a source that is, to the University of Trento and its Partners' best knowledge, from a freely available public resource, however, any further use of such files is at the user’s responsibility.

Responsibility

This site is maintained by the University of Trento, with financial support from the World Health Organization (WHO). The University of Trento will not be responsible for any use of the site.

No endorsement

Inclusion of a case on the website does not necessarily involve a view, position, or endorsement by the University of Trento or the WHO, including with respect to any legal matter. The site is not a product of WHO and does not necessarily reflect the views or positions of the WHO.

User account menu

  • Log in

Footer menu

  • Contacts
  • Terms of use
  • Privacy
  • Cookies