Full text
1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
COLUMBUS DIVISION
MARK CHANGIZI,
)
MICHAEL SENGER,
)
DANIEL KOTZIN,
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
Civil Action No. 2:22-cv-01776
)
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
)
HUMAN SERVICES;
)
VIVEK MURTHY, United States
)
ORDER ON MOTION FOR
Surgeon General in his
)
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
official capacity, and
)
XAVIER BECERRA,
)
Secretary of the Department
)
of Health and Human Services
)
in his official capacity,
)
)
Defendants.
)
Upon Consideration of the Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed by Plaintiffs Michael
P. Senger, Mark Changizi, and Daniel P. Kotzin, and in accordance with Rule 65 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court concludes that the Motion should be granted and remain in
effect during the pendency of this litigation.
Defendants have launched an initiative designed to combat “misinformation” pertaining to
COVID-19 issues on social media platforms. They have made statements demanding that
technology companies censor individuals who articulate views that contradict the Government’s
messaging on the issue and threatening the companies with adverse consequences if they do not
comply. Furthermore, they have ordered the companies to turn over “sources” of misinformation
by May 2, 2022.
2
Plaintiffs’ Twitter accounts have all been suspended, temporarily and on at least two
occasions, during this initiative. Plaintiff Senger has entirely lost his Twitter account. Moreover,
it has prompted Plaintiffs to self-censor on social media because the initiative has a profound
chilling effect.
No statute endows the Surgeon General with the authority to direct social media companies
to censor individuals or viewpoints that he, or the Biden Administration, consider problematic.
Accordingly, this initiative constitutes ultra vires action. Moreover, it is clear that the companies
are acting at the direction of the Government, turning this censorship into state action and violating
Plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights. The requirement that companies provide information about
users who spread “misinformation” constitutes a warrantless search in violation of the Fourth
Amendment.
Because their constitutional rights are being violated by the initiative, and because the
Surgeon General has set a May 2, 2022, deadline for turning over “sources of misinformation”
Plaintiffs will suffer irreparable harm if a preliminary injunction is not granted. Furthermore, the
balance of equities tilts heavily in Plaintiffs’ favor. Defendants do not have an interest in
enforcement of an unlawful and unconstitutional initiative. Finally, the public has an interest in
seeing Plaintiffs’ constitutional (and statutory) rights vindicated. In sum, Plaintiffs have
demonstrated entitlement to a preliminary injunction.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT:
(1) Defendants are hereby prohibited from enforcing coercive policies or conditions similar to
those described above that exert pressure upon Twitter and other technology companies to
censor users, and are ordered to retract the May 2, 2022 Request for Information. This
3
Order shall remain in effect until this Court reaches a contrary determination or reaches a
final judgment with respect to relief sought by Plaintiff and others similarly situated.
THUS DONE AND SIGNED this ___________ day of ___________, 2022 in
_____________, Ohio.
_________________________
JUDGE _____________________
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO