Campaign Challenged in Legal Battle over Stifling Vaccine Harm Assertions by Federal Authorities
The New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA) continues its legal battle against the alleged collusion between federal entities and social media platforms, as seen in the active Dressen, et al. v. Flaherty, et al. lawsuit.
At the heart of the case are the stories of several plaintiffs, including Brianne Dressen, Shaun Barcavage, Kristi Dobbs, Nikki Holland, Suzanna Newell, and Ernest Ramirez, who have reported severe adverse reactions to Covid vaccines. Mr. Ramirez's son unfortunately died five days post-vaccination due to vaccine-related causes.
Jenin Younes, another Litigation Counsel at NCLA, has pointed out the stark contradiction between the government's narrative and the plaintiffs' harsh realities. These individuals, who have faced relentless censorship on social media platforms, are not opposed to vaccination in general.
Through this lawsuit, the NCLA aims to hold the Administration and certain officials accountable for their flagrantly unconstitutional conduct. The legal battle aims to secure an injunction against this alleged state-sponsored censorship, asserting that the ongoing suppression efforts violate the First Amendment's protections of free speech and association, undermining the plaintiffs' rights and silencing an important dialogue about vaccine safety and personal health sovereignty.
Casey Norman, Litigation Counsel at NCLA, stated that the case highlights the abominable consequences of government evading its restraint. The government's response, according to the NCLA, was to wield their authority to get social media companies to silence the plaintiffs.
The amended complaint underscores a campaign led by the White House, the CDC, and the Surgeon General's Office, who are accused of pressuring social media giants to dismiss and discredit accounts of vaccine side effects. The NCLA's legal team has emphasized the gravity of the case and its implications for civil liberties, asserting that the administration's actions should shock the conscience of all Americans.
As of mid-August 2025, specific announcements of final rulings, settlements, or dismissals are not accessible in the current sources. However, the case is mentioned alongside other significant legal efforts by NCLA to expose coordination between government agencies and private platforms allegedly limiting certain speech or claims related to vaccines.
For the latest developments, monitoring NCLA’s official communications or court records for Dressen v. Flaherty would provide the most accurate status updates. The case is significant as it challenges the alleged collusion between federal entities and social media platforms to stifle the voices of individuals claiming injuries from Covid vaccines.
- The plaintiffs in the Dressen v. Flaherty lawsuit, who have encountered censorship on social media platforms, claim severe adverse reactions to Covid vaccines, and one plaintiff's son even died due to vaccine-related causes.
- The New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA) argues that the government's narrative about vaccine safety contrasts sharply with the harsh realities of the plaintiffs, and asserts that this violates their First Amendment rights to free speech and association.
- Jenin Younes of the NCLA claims that the Administration and certain officials have engaged in flagrantly unconstitutional conduct by suppressing the plaintiffs' accounts of vaccine side effects, undermining health-and-wellness discussions and personal health sovereignty.
- Casey Norman of the NCLA contends that the government's actions, which include using their authority to silence the plaintiffs, represent an abominable evasion of their restraint and a stark contradiction to the principles of civil liberties and free speech.
