MARK CHANGIZI; MICHAEL P. SENGER; DANIEL KOTZIN v. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES; VIVEK MURTHY, in his official capacity as U.S. Surgeon General; XAVIER BECERRA, in his official capacity as Secretary of Health and Human Services - Articles

All Content

MARK CHANGIZI; MICHAEL P. SENGER; DANIEL KOTZIN v. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES; VIVEK MURTHY, in his official capacity as U.S. Surgeon General; XAVIER BECERRA, in his official capacity as Secretary of Health and Human Services

Posted by: Tanja Trezise on Sep 14, 2023

Court: 6th Circuit Court (Published Opinions)

Attorneys 1: ARGUED: John J. Vecchione, NEW CIVIL LIBERTIES ALLIANCE, Washington, D.C., for Appellants.

Attorneys 2: ARGUED: Daniel Winik, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellees.

Attorneys 3: ON BRIEF: John J. Vecchione, Jenin Younes, NEW CIVIL LIBERTIES ALLIANCE, Washington, D.C., for Appellants.

Attorneys 4: ON BRIEF: Daniel Winik, Daniel Tenny, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellees.

Attorneys 5: ON BRIEF: Lawrence S. Ebner, ATLANTIC LEGAL FOUNDATION, Washington, D.C., Deborah J. Dewart, Hubert, North Carolina, Eugene Volokh, UCLA SCHOOL OF LAW, Los Angeles, California, Sarah Harbison, PELICAN INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC POLICY, New Orleans, Louisiana, Nicole Saad Bembridge, NETCHOICE, Washington, D.C., Thomas A. Berry, CATO INSTITUTE, Washington, D.C., Talmadge Butts, FOUNDATION FOR MORAL LAW, Montgomery, Alabama, B. Tyler Brooks, LAW OFFICE OF B. TYLER BROOKS, PLLC, Greensboro, North Carolina, Thomas Brejcha, THOMAS MORE SOCIETY, Chicago, Illinois, Alan Gura, INSTITUTE FOR FREE SPEECH, Washington, D.C., Ilya Shapiro, MANHATTAN INSTITUTE, New York, New York, for Amici Curiae.

Judge(s): BOGGS, WHITE, and BUSH, Circuit Judges

Court Appealed: Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio at Columbus

JOHN K. BUSH, Circuit Judge. Several Twitter users were temporarily or permanently banned from the platform for posting alleged COVID-19 misinformation. Rather than sue Twitter, these users chose to sue the United States Department of Health and Human Services, its Secretary, and the United States Surgeon General (collectively, HHS). Though these users asserted claims under the First Amendment, Fourth Amendment, and Administrative Procedure Act, the district court dismissed their complaint for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. On appeal, we ask: are Twitter’s actions traceable to the federal government? Based on the facts alleged in the complaint, no. We affirm.

Attachments: