Accessibility Tools

Skip to main content

Dressen v. Flaherty

  • Lawsuit Type: First Amendment

This case challenges the government’s mass-censorship program in ensuring that disfavored viewpoints deemed a threat to its agenda are suppressed.

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution is one of the most fundamental components of American law. The First Amendment protects several basic liberties, including freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, the right to assemble peacefully, and the right to petition the government for redress of grievances.

However, because the COVID vaccine-injured constitute an inconvenient truth contradicting the government’s “safe and effective” narrative, numerous federal agencies and government actors—including within the White House—coerced and induced social media platforms to censor, suppress, and label as “misinformation” speech expressed by those of us who have suffered vaccine-related injuries. This state action is unlawful, and the government must not be allowed to censor such free speech and free association.

For that reason, React19 Co-Chair Brianne Dressen and five other React19 members brought suit seeking to enjoin this deplorable government conduct. The case, Dressen v. Flaherty, is currently pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. This case is represented by the New Civil Liberties Alliance – one of the country’s premiere nonpartisan legal organizations focused on protecting individual rights and challenging administrative overreach. We are grateful for its support.

Since filing, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Murthy v. Missouri - surely one of the most pivotal First Amendment cases in U.S. history. Significantly, because Dressen and Murthy raise the same constitutional questions regarding the government’s censorious coercion of social media companies, this case is essentially on hold until the Court rules in Murthy. For that reason, React19, in partnership with the Manhattan Institute, and with assistance from Siri & Glimstad LLP, submitted an Amicus Brief for the Court’s consideration in Murthy. We remain hopeful the Court will consider the egregious censorship of the COVID vaccine-injured before issuing its critical ruling in Murthy.

Much like the other cases mentioned above, the precedent-setting outcome of Dressen v. Flaherty will likely affect every single member of our community, appropriately so in light of the fact that we have all been victimized by the government’s censorious conduct.