Home

The ruling was issued just days before RFK Jr. suspended his struggling presidential campaign and threw his support behind former President Trump.

Critics of RFK Jr.’s charity have labeled it “anti-vaccine,” a claim countered by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), which maintains that vaccines, including the COVID-19 vaccine, are “safe and effective.”

Following the ruling, Kim Rosenberg, general counsel for Children’s Health Defense (CHD), expressed approval, stating, “Judge Terry Doughty carefully and clearly analyzed the law and facts, applying the framework from the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Murthy v. Missouri regarding standing.” Rosenberg emphasized that the court found in favor of the plaintiffs, affirming that they had not waived their direct censorship claims and had actively raised them alongside listener claims.

The Murthy v. Missouri case, brought by the Republican attorneys general of Missouri and Louisiana, involved accusations that the Biden administration pressured social media companies to censor specific content. Although a Louisiana court initially banned communication between the government and these companies, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a 6-3 decision that the plaintiffs lacked sufficient evidence to prove direct injury. The Court also found no direct link between the government and the alleged censorship, noting that companies retain the right to moderate their own content.

In the Murthy v. Missouri decision, Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote that “the evidence indicates that the platforms had independent incentives to moderate content and often exercised their own judgment.” This viewpoint was shared by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Brett Kavanaugh, Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson, all of whom also voted against the plaintiffs.