Case 3:23-cv-00381-TAD-KDM Document 1 Filed 03/24/23 Page 1 of 120 PageID #: 1
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
`MONROE DIVISION
`
`
`
`
` No. ________________
`
`
`
`
`
` JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
` CLASS ACTION
`
`
`ROBERT F. KENNEDY, JR.,
`CHILDREN’S HEALTH DEFENSE,
`& CONNIE SAMPOGNARO, individually
`and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
` v.
`
`JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., in his official
`capacity as President of the United States;
`
`KARINE JEAN-PIERRE, in her official
`capacity as White House Press Secretary;
`
`VIVEK H. MURTHY, in his official
`Capacity as Surgeon General of the
`United States;
`
`XAVIER BECERRA, in his official
`capacity as Secretary of the Department of
`Health and Human Services;
`
`DR. ANTHONY FAUCI, in his official
`capacity as Director of the National Institute
`of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and as
`Chief Medical Advisor to the President;
`
`NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ALLERGY
`AND INFECTIOUS DISEASES;
`
`CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL
`AND PREVENTION;
`
`CAROL Y. CRAWFORD, in her official
`capacity as Chief of the Digital Media
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-00381-TAD-KDM Document 1 Filed 03/24/23 Page 2 of 120 PageID #: 2
`
`
`Branch of the Division of Public Affairs
`within the Centers for Disease Control and
`Prevention;
`
`UNITED STATES CENSUS BUREAU,
`a.k.a. BUREAU OF THE CENSUS;
`
`JENNIFER SHOPKORN, in her official
`capacity as Senior Advisor for
`Communications in the U.S. Census Bureau;
`
`DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE;
`
`ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS, in his official
`capacity as Secretary of the Department of
`Homeland Security;
`
`ROBERT SILVERS, in his official capacity
`as Under Secretary of the Office of Strategy,
`Policy, and Plans within DHS
`
`SAMANTHA VINOGRAD, in her official
`capacity as Senior Counselor for National
`Security in the Office of the Secretary
`for DHS;
`
`DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
`SECURITY;
`
`JEN EASTERLY, in her official capacity
`as Director of the Cybersecurity and
`Infrastructure Security Agency;
`
`CYBERSECURITY AND
`INFRASTRUCTURE SECURITY
`AGENCY;
`
`GINA McCARTHY, in her official capacity
`as White House National Climate Advisor;
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-00381-TAD-KDM Document 1 Filed 03/24/23 Page 3 of 120 PageID #: 3
`
`
`NINA JANKOWICZ, in her official capacity
`as director of the so-called “Disinformation
`Governance Board” within DHS;
`
`ANDREW SLAVITT, in his official capacity
`as White House Senior COVID-10 Advisor;
`
`ROB FLAHERTY, in his official capacity as
`Deputy Assistant to the President and
`Director of Digital Strategy at the White
`House;
`
`COURTNEY ROWE, in her official capacity
`as White House Covid-19 Director of
`Strategic Communications and Engagement;
`
`CLARKE HUMPHREY, in her official
`capacity as White House Digital Director for
`the Covid-19 Response Team;
`
`BENJAMIN WAKANA, in his official
`capacity as the Deputy Director of Strategic
`Communications and Engagement at the
`White House COVID-19 Response Team;
`
`DANA REMUS, in her official capacity as
`Counsel to the President;
`
`AISHA SHAH, in her official capacity as
`White House Partnerships Manager,
`
`LAURA ROSENBERGER, in her official
`capacity as Special Assistant to the President,
`
`MINA HSIANG, in her official capacity as
`Administrator of the U.S. Digital Service
`within the Office of Management and Budget
`in the Executive Office of the President,
`
`U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-00381-TAD-KDM Document 1 Filed 03/24/23 Page 4 of 120 PageID #: 4
`
`
`FEDERAL BUREAU OF
`INVESTIGATION,
`
`LAURA DEHMLOW, in her official capacity
`as Section Chief for the FBI’s Foreign
`Influence Task Force,
`
`ELVIS M. CHAN, in his official capacity as
`Supervisory Special Agent of Squad CY- 1 in
`the San Francisco Division of the Federal
`Bureau of Investigation,
`
`JAY DEMPSEY, in his official capacity as
`Social Media Team Lead, Digital Media
`Branch, Division of Public Affairs at the
`CDC,
`
`ERIC WALDO, in his official capacity as
`Chief Engagement Officer for the Surgeon
`General,
`
`YOLANDA BYRD, in her official capacity as
`a member of the Digital Engagement Team at
`HHS,
`
`CHRISTY CHOI, in her official capacity as
`Deputy Director, Office of Communications,
`HRSA within HHS;
`
`TERICKA LAMBERT, in her official
`capacity as Director of Digital Engagement at
`HHS and Deputy Director of the Office of
`Digital Strategy at the White House,
`
`JOSHUA PECK, in his official capacity as
`Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public
`Engagement at HHS,
`
`JANELL MUHAMMED, in her official
`capacity as Deputy Digital Director at HHS,
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-00381-TAD-KDM Document 1 Filed 03/24/23 Page 5 of 120 PageID #: 5
`
`
`MATTHEW MASTERSON, in his official
`capacity as Senior Cybersecurity Advisory
`within CISA in the Department of Homeland
`Security,
`
`LAUREN PROTENTIS, in her official
`capacity as an official of CISA,
`
`GEOFFREY HALE, in his official capacity
`as an official of CISA,
`
`ALLISON SNELL, in her official capacity as
`an official of CISA,
`
`BRIAN SCULLY, in his official capacity as
`an official of DHS and CISA,
`
`ZACHARY HENRY SCHWARTZ, in his
`official capacity as Division Chief for the
`Communications Directorate at the U.S.
`Census Bureau,
`
`LORENA MOLINA-IRIZARRY, in her
`official capacity as an official of the Census
`Bureau,
`
`KRISTIN GALEMORE, in her official
`capacity as Deputy Director of the Office of
`Faith Based and Neighborhood Partnerships
`at the Census Bureau,
`
`ERICA JEFFERSON, in her official capacity
`as Associate Commissioner for External
`Affairs within the Office of the Commissioner
`at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration,
`
`MICHAEL MURRAY, in his official
`capacity as Acquisition Strategy Program
`Manager for the Office of Health
`Communications and Education at the FDA,
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-00381-TAD-KDM Document 1 Filed 03/24/23 Page 6 of 120 PageID #: 6
`
`
`BRAD KIMBERLY, in his official capacity
`as Director of Social Media at the FDA,
`
`U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE,
`
`SAMARUDDIN K. STEWART, in his
`official capacity as Senior Technical Advisor
`and/or Senior Advisor for the Global
`Engagement Center of the State Department,
`
`DANIEL KIMMAGE, in his official capacity
`as Acting Coordinator for the Global
`Engagement Center at the State Department,
`
`ALEXIS FRISBIE, in her official capacity as
`a member of the Technology Engagement
`Team at the Global Engagement Center at the
`State Department,
`
`U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY,
`
`U.S. ELECTION ASSISTANCE
`COMMISSION,
`
`MARK A. ROBBINS, in his official capacity
`as Interim Executive Director of the EAC,
`and
`
`KRISTEN MUTHIG, in her official capacity
`as Director of Communications for the EAC,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-00381-TAD-KDM Document 1 Filed 03/24/23 Page 7 of 120 PageID #: 7
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`By and for their complaint herein, on personal knowledge with respect to themselves and
`
`on information and belief with respect to all other allegations, Plaintiffs allege as follows.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1. A half century ago, in Norwood v. Harrison, 413 U.S. 455, 465 (1973), the Supreme
`
`Court reaffirmed what the Justices called an “axiomatic” principle of constitutional law.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`The Court set forth this principle categorically, without qualification or dissent.
`
`The principle was this: government “may not induce, encourage, or promote private
`
`persons to accomplish what it is constitutionally forbidden to accomplish.” Id. (citation omitted)
`
`(emphasis added).
`
`4.
`
`The Norwood principle is “axiomatic” because, without it, government actors could
`
`evade nearly every prohibition in the Bill of Rights through the simple expedient of inducing
`
`private parties to do what the Constitution bars the government from doing directly.
`
`“Constitutional limitations on governmental action would be severely undercut if the government
`
`were allowed to actively encourage conduct by ‘private’ persons or entities that is prohibited to
`
`the government itself.” United States v. Davis, 482 F.2d 893, 904 (9th Cir. 1973) (federal
`
`government may not constitutionally seek to induce private airlines to conduct searches that would
`
`violate the Fourth Amendment if engaged in by state actors).
`
`5.
`
`The Norwood principle fully applies to the First Amendment. As Justice Thomas
`
`recently put it, the government acts unconstitutionally if it “induces [a private entity] to take action
`
`the government itself would not be permitted to do, such as censor expression of a lawful
`
`viewpoint.” Biden v. Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia Univ., 141 S. Ct. 1220, 1226
`
`(2021) (Thomas, J., concurring).
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-00381-TAD-KDM Document 1 Filed 03/24/23 Page 8 of 120 PageID #: 8
`
`
`6.
`
`Today, fifty years after Norwood, the federal government has apparently forgotten this
`
`axiomatic principle—or else has decided it isn’t bound by a clear holding of the United States
`
`Supreme Court.
`
`7. Beginning in early 2020 and continuing to the present day, the federal government has
`
`waged a systematic, concerted campaign, astonishing in its breadth and effectiveness, to “induce,
`
`encourage, [and] promote” the nation’s three largest social-media platforms “to accomplish what
`
`[the government] is constitutionally forbidden to accomplish”—namely, the censorship of
`
`constitutionally protected speech.
`
`8.
`
`Those three social-media companies—Facebook,1 Google,2 and Twitter3—wield a
`
`power over the content of American public discourse far greater than any entity, private or public,
`
`has ever wielded before. See Knight First Amendment Institute, 141 S. Ct. at 1221 (Thomas, J.,
`
`concurring) (“Today’s digital platforms provide avenues for historically unprecedented amounts of
`
`speech. . . Also unprecedented, however, is the concentrated control of so much speech in the
`
`hands of a few private parties.”).
`
`9.
`
`Since 2020, an ever-growing army of federal officers, at every level of the government—
`
`from the White House itself to the FBI, the CIA, the Department of Homeland Security, the CDC,
`
`the Office of the Surgeon General, and numerous less-well-known federal entities—has been
`
`engaged in the effort to induce those companies to censor constitutionally protected speech.
`
`10. Through this censorship campaign, federal agents and agencies have encouraged,
`
`promoted, and induced those companies to stifle viewpoints that the government disfavors, to
`
`
`1 “Facebook” is used throughout this Complaint to refer to the company now calling itself “Meta” that (among other
`things) owns a variety of social media platforms such as Facebook and Instagram.
`2 “Google” refers to Google LLC, which owns (among other things) the Google search engine and the video-based
`social-media platform YouTube.
`3 “Twitter” refers to Twitter, Inc., which owns and operates the microblogging social-media platform Twitter.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-00381-TAD-KDM Document 1 Filed 03/24/23 Page 9 of 120 PageID #: 9
`
`
`suppress facts that the government does not want the public to hear, and to silence specific
`
`speakers—in every case critics of federal policy—whom the government has targeted by name.
`
`11. Because of the historically unprecedented power wielded by a handful of behemoth
`
`social-media companies over the content of American public discourse, the federal government’s
`
`systematic campaign to induce these companies to censor speech is among the gravest threats to
`
`free speech this country has ever faced.
`
`12. With virtually every passing week come fresh disclosures of secret communications
`
`between federal officials and social-media platforms working together to suppress constitutionally
`
`protected speech—in the words of one eminent constitutional scholar, “the most massive system
`
`of censorship in the nation’s history.” Phillip Hamburger, Is Social-Media Censorship a Crime?,
`
`Wall St. J. (Dec. 14, 2022), https://www.wsj.com/articles/is-social-media-censorship-a-crime-
`
`section-241-us-code-government-private-conspiracy-civil-rights-speech-11670934266.
`
`13. This censorship campaign has involved repeated threats made by powerful members of
`
`the federal government, including the President himself, to visit catastrophic consequences on
`
`social-media companies (for example, breaking them up under the antitrust laws) if they fail to
`
`censor more aggressively speech that federal actors disfavor.
`
`14.
`
`In addition, federal agents and agencies have repeatedly entered into collusive
`
`partnerships with social-media companies, working closely and jointly with those companies to
`
`decide what speech and what speakers to censor.
`
`15.
`
`It is well established that the government violates the Constitution if it uses coercive
`
`threats to induce private parties to censor protected speech or if it engages in collusive joint action
`
`with private parties to violate the First Amendment. See, e.g., Bantam Books v. Sullivan, 372
`
`U.S. 58 (1963) (threats); Brentwood Academy v. Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Assn., 531
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-00381-TAD-KDM Document 1 Filed 03/24/23 Page 10 of 120 PageID #: 10
`
`
`U.S. 288, 296 (2001) (joint activity).
`
`16. Moreover, the government’s censorship campaign has been relentlessly content-based
`
`and viewpoint-discriminatory.
`
`17.
`
`It is “a core postulate of free speech law” that “government may not discriminate against
`
`speech based on the ideas or opinions it conveys.” Iancu v. Brunetti, 139 S. Ct. 2294, 2299
`
`(2019). See Ashcroft v. ACLU, 535 U.S. 564, 573 (2002) (citation omitted) (“the First
`
`Amendment means that government has no power to restrict expression because of its message,
`
`its ideas, its subject matter, or its content”).
`
`18. Yet the federal government’s censorship campaign has repeatedly, systematically, and
`
`very successfully targeted constitutionally protected speech on the basis of its content and
`
`viewpoint.
`
`19. To give just three out of countless examples, this censorship campaign:
`
`A. was responsible, just before the presidential election of 2020, for the online
`
`suppression of reporting about a laptop owned by President Biden’s son Hunter
`
`Biden—reporting now known to be accurate—an act of censorship that deprived
`
`Americans of information of the highest public interest and may even have swung
`
`the outcome of that election;
`
`B. was responsible throughout much of 2020 and 2021 for the online suppression of
`
`any reporting, any information, or any expressions of opinion suggesting that
`
`COVID-19 may have originated in a Chinese government laboratory in Wuhan,
`
`again depriving Americans of information and legitimate opinion of the highest
`
`public importance at a critical period of time; and
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-00381-TAD-KDM Document 1 Filed 03/24/23 Page 11 of 120 PageID #: 11
`
`
`C. is responsible even now for the online suppression of facts and opinions about the
`
`COVID vaccines that might lead people to become “hesitant” about COVID
`
`vaccine mandates, again depriving Americans of information and opinion on
`
`matters of the highest public importance.
`
`20. This is a class action for declaratory and injunctive relief (no damages are sought)
`
`brought on behalf of consumers of news on social-media platforms against the federal agencies
`
`and officers participating in this censorship campaign.
`
`21. Over 80% of Americans now access the news from digital devices, and some 80% of
`
`online news traffic is accessed through news aggregators and social-media companies, principally
`
`Facebook, Google (which owns YouTube), and Twitter. As the Supreme Court has put it, social-
`
`media platforms are “the modern public square,” Packingham v. North Carolina, 137 S. Ct. 1730,
`
`1737 (2017), and every American who consumes news online has a First Amendment right against
`
`government censorship of protected speech in that public square.
`
`22. Consumers of online news have standing to bring this suit for the same reason
`
`consumers of prescription medicines had standing in Virginia State Board of Pharmacy: because
`
`the First Amendment protects not only the right to speak, but also the “right to ‘receive
`
`information and ideas.’” Va. State Bd. of Pharmacy v. Va. Citizens Consumer Council 425 U.S.
`
`748, 756 (1976) (citation omitted) (striking down ban on advertising drug prices). See also, e.g.,
`
`Davis v. East Baton Rouge Parish School Bd., 78 F.3d 920, 926 (5th Cir. 1996) (“[T]he First
`
`Amendment protects the . . . right to receive protected speech.”); Kass v. City of New York, 864
`
`F.3d 200, 207 (2d Cir. 2017) (First Amendment “extends not only to the right to speak, but also
`
`to the right to listen and receive information”).
`
`23. Moreover, consumers of online news are the most appropriate parties to challenge the
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-00381-TAD-KDM Document 1 Filed 03/24/23 Page 12 of 120 PageID #: 12
`
`
`federal government’s online censorship campaign. For in a case like this, “it is the right of the
`
`viewers and listeners . . . which is paramount,” since it “is the purpose of the First Amendment
`
`to preserve an uninhibited marketplace of ideas in which truth will ultimately prevail.” CBS v.
`
`FCC, 453 U.S. 367, 395 (1981) (emphasis added) (citation omitted).
`
`24.
`
`Indeed, a nationwide class of online news consumers is the only fully appropriate party
`
`to seek the remedy necessary and warranted here—i.e., a nationwide injunction.
`
`25. Only a nationwide injunction can effectively redress the federal government’s
`
`nationwide effort to censor constitutionally protected online speech, and the most appropriate
`
`party to seek that remedy is not an individual who has been censored, nor even a state Attorney
`
`General, but rather a nationwide class of online news consumers.
`
`26. Apart from the Judiciary, no branch of our Government, and no other institution, can
`
`stop the current Administration’s systematic efforts to suppress speech through the conduit of
`
`social-media companies. Congress can’t, the Executive won’t, and States lack the power to do
`
`so. The fate of American free speech, as it has so often before, lies once again in the hands of
`
`the courts.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`27. This Court has subject-matter jurisdiction because the claims herein arise under the
`
`Constitution of the United States.
`
`28. As to the Defendant federal agencies, subject-matter jurisdiction lies because sovereign
`
`immunity has been expressly waived by the Administrative Procedure Act. See, e.g., Bolger v.
`
`District of Columbia, 510 F. Supp. 2d 86, 91 (D.D.C. 2007) (“Federal courts have subject-matter
`
`jurisdiction over [constitutional] suits seeking declaratory and injunctive relief because the APA
`
`waives [a] federal agency’s sovereign immunity even when the claim is one directly under the
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-00381-TAD-KDM Document 1 Filed 03/24/23 Page 13 of 120 PageID #: 13
`
`
`Constitution and not under the APA.”).
`
`29. Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) because substantial events
`
`giving rise to the claim occurred in this District, because named Plaintiffs have significant
`
`connections to Louisiana, because numerous Members of the proposed class reside here, and
`
`because a closely related case is already pending here.
`
`A.
`
`Plaintiffs.
`
`PARTIES
`
`30. PLAINTIFF ROBERT F. KENNEDY, Jr., a natural person and citizen of New York, is
`
`a world-renowned attorney and author. Over decades of legal service, he has repeatedly fought
`
`and won major battles against governments and large corporations on behalf of the poor, children,
`
`minorities, and the environment. In 2018, the National Trial Lawyers Association named Kennedy
`
`and his legal team Trial Team of the Year for their work winning a $289 million jury verdict
`
`against Monsanto for selling carcinogenic weed-killer products.
`
`31. Kennedy is also the founder of Plaintiff Children’s Health Defense (CHD).
`
`32.
`
`Information, ideas, and analysis published online concerning U.S. elections and COVID-
`
`19 are critically important to Kennedy for his own personal knowledge, for his role as a citizen,
`
`and for the many activities he is engaged in to shed light on and fight against governmental policies
`
`he believes to be inimical to the health and well-being of individuals and this country.
`
`33. Kennedy is also an online news publisher, with hundreds of thousands of followers and
`
`audience members. In producing his news reports, Kennedy draws on information, analysis, and
`
`ideas he gathers from, among other sources, Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube. When content is
`
`censored on those sites, it is often difficult or impossible for Kennedy to find it elsewhere and to
`
`relay it to his readers.
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-00381-TAD-KDM Document 1 Filed 03/24/23 Page 14 of 120 PageID #: 14
`
`
`34. Both as a news consumer and news publisher, Kennedy has a protected legal interest in
`
`his ability to gain online access to accurate, complete, uncensored information and opinion from
`
`willing speakers about COVID-19 and U.S. politics.
`
`35. PLAINTIFF CHILDREN’S HEALTH DEFENSE (“CHD”) is a nonprofit organization
`
`incorporated in Georgia and headquartered in New Jersey dedicated to informing the public of,
`
`and fighting against, various threats to children’s health.
`
`36. CHD has over seventy thousand members, including numerous members who reside in
`
`Louisiana and in this District.
`
`37. CHD’s members tend to be avid consumers of news concerning COVID-19 and
`
`governmental health policies. To find such news, they often rely—as do countless other
`
`Americans—on what is reported on Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube. They also tend to be
`
`highly active in local politics on matters related to COVID and other health issues.
`
`38.
`
`Information, ideas, and analysis published online and related to COVID-19 and
`
`governmental health policies are critically important to CHD’s members for their own personal
`
`knowledge, for their role as citizens, and for the many activities they are engaged in to change
`
`governmental policies to which they object.
`
`39. CHD is also an online publisher of news viewed by thousands of people. In producing
`
`such news, CHD draws on information, analysis, and ideas it gathers from, among other sources,
`
`Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube. When content is censored on those sites, it is often difficult or
`
`impossible for CHD and CHD’s members to find it elsewhere.
`
`40. CHD’s members and CHD itself have a protected legal interest in their ability to gain
`
`online access to accurate, complete, uncensored information and opinion from willing speakers
`
`about COVID-19 and U.S. politics.
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-00381-TAD-KDM Document 1 Filed 03/24/23 Page 15 of 120 PageID #: 15
`
`
`41. PLAINTIFF CONNIE SAMPOGNARO is a natural person, a citizen of Louisiana, and
`
`a resident of this District.
`
`42. Sampognaro holds a Master’s Degree in Healthcare Management and has worked as a
`
`health care professional.
`
`43. She is keenly interested in issues of public health care policy and has been since the
`
`beginning of the pandemic a frequent consumer of online news related to COVID-19.
`
`44.
`
`Information, ideas, and analysis published online related to COVID-19 are important to
`
`Sampognaro for her own personal health, for role as a citizen, and for her role as a health care
`
`policy advocate in her community.
`
`45. Sampognaro has a protected legal interest in her ability to gain online access to accurate,
`
`complete, and uncensored information and opinions from willing speakers about COVID-19 and
`
`U.S. politics. When viewpoints, information, and ideas related to these matters are censored on the
`
`country’s major social-media sites, it is often difficult or impossible for Sampognaro to find it
`
`elsewhere.
`
`B.
`
`Defendants.
`
`46. DEFENDANT JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., is President of the United States. He is sued in
`
`his official capacity.
`
`47. DEFENDANT KARINE JEAN-PIERRE is White House Press Secretary. She is sued in
`
`her official capacity; her predecessor in office was former White House Press Secretary Jennifer
`
`Rene Psaki.
`
`48. DEFENDANT VIVEK H. MURTHY is Surgeon General of the United States. He is
`
`sued in his official capacity.
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-00381-TAD-KDM Document 1 Filed 03/24/23 Page 16 of 120 PageID #: 16
`
`
`49. DEFENDANT XAVIER BECERRA is Secretary of the Department of Health and
`
`Human Services. He is sued in his official capacity.
`
`50. DEFENDANT DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES (HHS) is a
`
`Cabinet-level agency within the Government of the United States.
`
`51. DEFENDANT ANTHONY FAUCI was the Director of the National Institute of Allergy
`
`and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) and Chief Medical Advisor to the President and on information
`
`and belief continues to advise the Administration on health matters. He is sued in his official
`
`capacity.
`
`52. DEFENDANT NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ALLERGY AND INFECTIOUS
`
`DISEASES (NIAID) is a federal agency under the Department of Health and Senior Services.
`
`53. DEFENDANT CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION (CDC) is
`
`a federal agency under the Department of Health and Human Services.
`
`54. DEFENDANT CAROL Y. CRAWFORD is Chief of the Digital Media Branch of the
`
`Division of Public Affairs within the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. She is sued
`
`in her official capacity.
`
`55. DEFENDANT UNITED STATES CENSUS BUREAU, a.k.a. Bureau of the Census
`
`(“Census Bureau”), is an agency of the federal government within the Department of Commerce.
`
`56. DEFENDANT JENNIFER SHOPKORN is Senior Advisor for Communications with
`
`the U.S. Census Bureau. She is sued in her official capacity.
`
`57. DEFENDANT U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE is a Cabinet-level agency
`
`within the Government of the United States.
`
`58. DEFENDANT ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS is Secretary of the Department of
`
`Homeland Security. He is sued in his official capacity.
`
`59. DEFENDANT ROBERT SILVERS is Under Secretary of the Office of Strategy,
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-00381-TAD-KDM Document 1 Filed 03/24/23 Page 17 of 120 PageID #: 17
`
`
`Policy, and Plans, within the Department of Homeland Security. He is sued in his official
`
`capacity.
`
`60. DEFENDANT SAMANTHA VINOGRAD is the Senior Counselor for National
`
`Security within the Office of the Secretary of DHS. She is sued in her official capacity.
`
`61. DEFENDANT DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY (DHS) is a Cabinet-
`
`level agency within the Government of the United States.
`
`62. DEFENDANT JEN EASTERLY is the Director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure
`
`Security Agency within the Department of Homeland Security. She is sued in her official
`
`capacity.
`
`63. DEFENDANT CYBERSECURITY AND
`
`INFRASTRUCTURE SECURITY
`
`AGENCY (CISA) is an agency within the Department of Homeland Security that is charged with
`
`protecting the United States’ cybersecurity and physical infrastructure.
`
`64. DEFENDANT GINA MCCARTHY is the White House National Climate Advisor.
`
`She is sued in her official capacity.
`
`65. At times relevant to this Complaint, DEFENDANT NINA JANKOWICZ was the
`
`director or intended director of the “Disinformation Governance Board” (for the entirety of its
`
`existence from April 27-August 24, 2022) within the Department of Homeland Security. She is
`
`sued in her official capacity.
`
`66. At times relevant to this Complaint, DEFENDANT ANDREW SLAVITT is or was the
`
`White House Senior COVID-19 Advisor. He is sued in his official capacity.
`
`67. DEFENDANT ROB FLAHERTY is Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of
`
`Digital Strategy at the White House. He is sued in his official capacity.
`
`68. At times relevant to this Complaint, DEFENDANT COURTNEY ROWE is or was the
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-00381-TAD-KDM Document 1 Filed 03/24/23 Page 18 of 120 PageID #: 18
`
`
`White House COVID-19 Director of Strategic Communications and Engagement. She is sued
`
`in her official capacity.
`
`69. DEFENDANT CLARKE HUMPHREY is the White House Digital Director for the
`
`COVID-19 Response Team. She is sued in her official capacity.
`
`70. At times relevant to this Complaint, DEFENDANT BENJAMIN WAKANA is or was
`
`the Deputy Director of Strategic Communications and Engagement at the White House COVID-
`
`19 Response Team. He is sued in his official capacity.
`
`71. DEFENDANT DANA REMUS was, at times relevant to this Complaint, Counsel to the
`
`President, a.k.a. White House Counsel. She is sued in her official capacity.
`
`72. DEFENDANT AISHA SHAH is White House Partnerships Manager. She is sued in
`
`her official capacity.
`
`73. DEFENDANT LAURA ROSENBERGER serves as Special Assistant to the President
`
`at the White House. She has extensive experience in service at the State Department. She is
`
`sued in her official capacity.
`
`74. DEFENDANT MINA HSIANG is Administrator of the U.S. Digital Service within the
`
`Office of Management and Budget in the Executive Office of the President. She is sued in her
`
`official capacity.
`
`75. DEFENDANT U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (“DOJ”) is a Cabinet-level agency
`
`within the Government of the United States.
`
`76. DEFENDANT FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (“FBI”) is an investigative
`
`agency of the federal Government within the U.S. Department of Justice. The Foreign Influence
`
`Task Force (“FITF”) is a task force within the FBI that purportedly investigates and/or addresses
`
`foreign influences within the United States. The FITF’s website states: “The FBI is the lead
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-00381-TAD-KDM Document 1 Filed 03/24/23 Page 19 of 120 PageID #: 19
`
`
`federal agency responsible for investigating foreign influence operations. In the fall of 2017,
`
`Director Christopher Wray established the Foreign Influence Task Force (FITF) to identify and
`
`counteract malign foreign influence operations targeting the United States.” https://www.fbi.gov/
`
`investigate/counterintelligence/foreign-influence.
`
`77. DEFENDANT LAURA DEHMLOW is the Section Chief for the FBI’s Foreign
`
`Influence Task Force. She is sued in her official capacity.
`
`78. DEFENDANT ELVIS M. CHAN is Supervisory Special Agent of Squad CY-1 in the
`
`San Francisco Division of the FBI. On information and belief, he has authority over cybersecurity
`
`issues for FBI in that geographical region, which includes the headquarters of major social-media
`
`platforms, and he plays a critical role for FBI and FITF in coordinating with social-media
`
`platforms relating to censorship and suppression of speech on their platforms. He is sued in his
`
`official capacity.
`
`79. DEFENDANT JAY DEMPSEY is Social Media Team Lead, Digital Media Branch,
`
`Division of Public Affairs at the CDC. He is sued in his official capacity.
`
`80. DEFENDANT ERIC WALDO is Chief Engagement Officer for the Surgeon General.
`
`He is sued in his official capacity.
`
`81. DEFENDANT YOLANDA BYRD is a member of the Digital Engagement Team at
`
`HHS. She is sued in her official capacity.
`
`82. DEFENDANT CHRISTY CHOI is Deputy Director, Office of Communications, HRSA
`
`within HHS. She is sued in her official capacity.
`
`83. DEFENDANT TERICKA LAMBERT served Director of Digital Engagement at HHS
`
`and now serves as Deputy Director of the Office of Digital Strategy at the White House. She is
`
`sued in her official capacity.
`
`
`
`19
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-00381-TAD-KDM Document 1 Filed 03/24/23 Page 20 of 120 PageID #: 20
`
`
`84. DEFENDANT JOSHUA PECK is Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public Engagement
`
`at HHS. He is sued in his official capacity.
`
`85. At times relevant to this Complaint, DEFENDANT JANELL MUHAMMAD is or was
`
`Deputy Digital Director at HHS. She is sued in her official capacity.
`
`86. At times relevant to this Complaint, DEFENDANT MATTHEW MASTERSON is or
`
`was Senior Cybersecurity Advisory within CISA in the Department of Homeland Security. He
`
`is sued in his official capacity.
`
`87. DEFENDANT LAUREN PROTENTIS is a member of the “Mis, Dis, and Mal-
`
`information (MDM) Team” within CISA at DHS. She is sued in her official capacity.
`
`88. DEFENDANT GEOFFERY HALE is a member of the Mis, Dis, and Mal-information
`
`(MDM) Team within CISA at DHS. He is sued in his official capacity.
`
`89. DEFENDANT ALLISON SNELL is a member of the Mis, Dis, and Mal-information
`
`(MDM) Team within CISA at DHS. She is sued in her official capacity.
`
`90. DEFENDANT BRIAN SCULLY is a member of DHS’s Countering Foreign Influence
`
`Task Force, National Risk Management Center, and the Chief of the Mis-, Dis-, Malinformation
`
`Team at